Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6237 THOMAS SHANE MATHERLY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TRACY W. JOHNS, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-hc-02091-BO) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Shane Matherly, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6237 THOMAS SHANE MATHERLY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TRACY W. JOHNS, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-hc-02091-BO) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Shane Matherly, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6237
THOMAS SHANE MATHERLY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
TRACY W. JOHNS,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02091-BO)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Shane Matherly, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Matherly appeals the district court’s order
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. Matherly v. Johns, No. 5:10-hc-02091-BO
(E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2011). 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