Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7286 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARY M. MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cv-01891-GRA) Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Dennis Eugene Ross, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7286 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARY M. MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cv-01891-GRA) Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Dennis Eugene Ross, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7286
DENNIS EUGENE ROSS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARY M. MITCHELL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cv-01891-GRA)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam.
Dennis Eugene Ross, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Eugene Ross, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for relief from the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Ross v. Mitchell, No. 6:10-cv-01891-GRA (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2011).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2