Filed: May 22, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6020 JONATHAN JORDAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:16-cv-02130-BHH) Submitted: May 10, 2017 Decided: May 22, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Jordan, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6020 JONATHAN JORDAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:16-cv-02130-BHH) Submitted: May 10, 2017 Decided: May 22, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Jordan, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6020
JONATHAN JORDAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:16-cv-02130-BHH)
Submitted: May 10, 2017 Decided: May 22, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Jordan, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing 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. See Jordan v. Bragg, No. 9:16-cv-02130-BHH
(D.S.C. Dec. 7, 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