Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Everton Minott v. Travis Bragg, 19-6619 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6619 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6619 EVERTON MINOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (0:18-cv-02561-TMC) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-6619


EVERTON MINOTT,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (0:18-cv-02561-TMC)


Submitted: September 24, 2019                               Decided: September 27, 2019


Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Everton Minott, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Everton Minott, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting as

modified the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Minott’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Minott v. Bragg, No.

0:18-cv-02561-TMC (D.S.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