Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Smith v. Kenney Atkinson, 13-7954 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7954 Visitors: 22
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7954 MICHAEL T. SMITH, Petitioner – Appellant, v. KENNEY ATKINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                              UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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