Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas Matherly v. A. Mansukhani, 19-6643 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6643 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6643 THOMAS SHANE MATHERLY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. MANSUKHANI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02022-D) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tho
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6643


THOMAS SHANE MATHERLY,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

A. MANSUKHANI,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02022-D)


Submitted: August 22, 2019                                        Decided: August 27, 2019


Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Shane Matherly, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Thomas Shane Matherly, 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. Matherly v. Mansukhani,

No. 5:18-hc-02022-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2019).         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

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