Filed: May 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7691 STEVEN A. SMITH, Petitioner – Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (0:10-cv-00297-RMG) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7691 STEVEN A. SMITH, Petitioner – Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (0:10-cv-00297-RMG) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7691
STEVEN A. SMITH,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DREW,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-00297-RMG)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Beth
Drake, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven A. Smith, 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. Smith v. Drew, No.
0:10-cv-00297-RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 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