Filed: Oct. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6548 DOMAINE MARTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-00443-HFF) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Domaine Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Beth
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6548 DOMAINE MARTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-00443-HFF) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Domaine Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Beth ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6548 DOMAINE MARTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-00443-HFF) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Domaine Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Domaine Martin, 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. Martin v. LaManna, No. 0:08-cv-00443-HFF (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 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
