Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Newman v. Ziegler, 11-6040 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-6040 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 27, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6040 JAMES BRAGG NEWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00090-IMK-JES) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Bragg Newman, Ap
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6040


JAMES BRAGG NEWMAN,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.    Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00090-IMK-JES)


Submitted:   April 21, 2011                 Decided:   April 27, 2011


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Bragg Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

             James Bragg Newman, 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.             Newman v. Ziegler, No.

1:10-cv-00090-IMK-JES (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 20, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer