Filed: Mar. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7590 MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:16- cv-03471-JKB) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Curt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7590 MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:16- cv-03471-JKB) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Curti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7590
MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:16-
cv-03471-JKB)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Curtis Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Curtis Reynolds, 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 leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Reynolds v. Stewart, No. 1:16-cv-03471-JKB (D. Md. Oct.
25, 2016). 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