Filed: Oct. 29, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7127 PHILLIP E. BOOSE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D. DREW, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:08-cv-01954-CMC) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip E. Boose, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7127 PHILLIP E. BOOSE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D. DREW, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:08-cv-01954-CMC) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip E. Boose, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7127 PHILLIP E. BOOSE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D. DREW, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:08-cv-01954-CMC) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip E. Boose, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip E. Boose, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on 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. Boose v. Drew, No. 4:08- cv-01954-CMC (D.S.C. June 20, 2008). 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
