Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7948 EUGENE ATKINS, II, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00036-JPB-JES) Submitted: April 27, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7948 EUGENE ATKINS, II, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00036-JPB-JES) Submitted: April 27, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7948
EUGENE ATKINS, II,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00036-JPB-JES)
Submitted: April 27, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Atkins, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Atkins, II, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, although we grant Atkins’ motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Atkins v. O’Brien, No. 2:14-cv-00036-JPB-JES
(N.D. W. Va. Nov. 30, 2015). 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