Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6838 ROGER LEE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00145-JPB-JPM) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6838 ROGER LEE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00145-JPB-JPM) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6838
ROGER LEE SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00145-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Lee Smith, 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. Smith v. Gomez, No. 5:19-cv-00145-JPB-JPM
(N.D.W. Va. Apr. 30, 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