Filed: Oct. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7344 ROY STEVE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOE DRIVER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00111-FPS-JES) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Steve Davis, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7344 ROY STEVE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOE DRIVER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00111-FPS-JES) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Steve Davis, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7344 ROY STEVE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOE DRIVER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00111-FPS-JES) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Steve Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roy Steve Davis, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) habeas corpus petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Davis v. Driver, No. 5:06-cv-00111-FPS- JES (N.D.W. Va. June 18, 2009). 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
