Filed: May 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6004 MARSHALL RAY MILLER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU OF PRISONS; MCKITHER BODISON, Respondents – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:08-cv-02806-TLW) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6004 MARSHALL RAY MILLER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU OF PRISONS; MCKITHER BODISON, Respondents – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:08-cv-02806-TLW) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6004 MARSHALL RAY MILLER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU OF PRISONS; MCKITHER BODISON, Respondents – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:08-cv-02806-TLW) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Ray Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marshall Ray Miller, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. United States Attorney General, No. 3:08-cv-02806-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 15, 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
