Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

David Glenn Green v. Justin Andrews, 17-7194 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-7194 Visitors: 46
Filed: Feb. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7194 DAVID GLENN GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02156-FL) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-7194


DAVID GLENN GREEN,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02156-FL)


Submitted: January 30, 2018                                       Decided: February 2, 2018


Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       David Glenn Green, 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, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.         Green v. Andrews, No.

5:16-hc-02156-FL (E.D.N.C. June 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.

                                                                              DISMISSED




                                            2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer