Filed: May 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6182 MARLON BRAMWELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. A. PERDUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00007-FPS-RWT) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6182 MARLON BRAMWELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. A. PERDUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00007-FPS-RWT) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6182
MARLON BRAMWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. A. PERDUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00007-FPS-RWT)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Bramwell, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition, and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders. 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