Filed: Sep. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6986 MICHAEL RAY ANDERSON, a/k/a Michael Anderson, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Bennettsville, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:07-cv-00943-CMC) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6986 MICHAEL RAY ANDERSON, a/k/a Michael Anderson, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Bennettsville, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:07-cv-00943-CMC) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6986 MICHAEL RAY ANDERSON, a/k/a Michael Anderson, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Bennettsville, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:07-cv-00943-CMC) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ray Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Ray Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Pettiford, No. 8:07-cv-00943-CMC (D.S.C. May 31, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
