Filed: May 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7954 MICHAEL T. SMITH, Petitioner – Appellant, v. KENNEY ATKINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02582-DCN) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael T. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7954 MICHAEL T. SMITH, Petitioner – Appellant, v. KENNEY ATKINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02582-DCN) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael T. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7954
MICHAEL T. SMITH,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
KENNEY ATKINSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02582-DCN)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael T. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Atkinson, No.
1:13-cv-02582-DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2