Filed: Dec. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7106 ANTHONY J. CLAYTOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI Hazelton-Med., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00085-GMG-RWT) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony J. Cla
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7106 ANTHONY J. CLAYTOR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI Hazelton-Med., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00085-GMG-RWT) Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony J. Clay..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7106
ANTHONY J. CLAYTOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI Hazelton-Med.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00085-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony J. Claytor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony J. Claytor, 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. Claytor v. Warden, No. 3:17-cv-00085-
GMG-RWT (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 1, 2017). 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