Filed: Dec. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7296 ARTHUR R. CARTER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01257-TMC) Submitted: December 11, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur R. Carter, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7296 ARTHUR R. CARTER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01257-TMC) Submitted: December 11, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur R. Carter, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7296 ARTHUR R. CARTER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01257-TMC) Submitted: December 11, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur R. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur R. Carter, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 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. Carter v. Warden, No. 1:12-cv- 01257-TMC (D.S.C. July 25, 2012). 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
