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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6619 EVERTON MINOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6619 EVERTON MINOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI Bennettsville,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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