Filed: Dec. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7222 TROY V. CLEVELAND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES N. CROSS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00120-FPS-JES) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy V. Clev
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7222 TROY V. CLEVELAND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES N. CROSS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00120-FPS-JES) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy V. Cleve..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7222
TROY V. CLEVELAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES N. CROSS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00120-FPS-JES)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy V. Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy V. Cleveland, 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.A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Cleveland v. Cross, No.
5:09-cv-00120-FPS-JES (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 9, 2010). 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