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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6040 JAMES BRAGG NEWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6040 JAMES BRAGG NEWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, App..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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