Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ballenger v. Olson, 97-6503 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6503 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6503 FREDERICK BALLENGER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH E. OLSON, Warden; MARK SIMPSON, Dr., Regional DAP Coordinator; MARGARET HAMBRICK, Regional Director; ED CROSLEY, Administrator; KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director of BOP; JANET RENO, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-96-1902
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6503 FREDERICK BALLENGER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH E. OLSON, Warden; MARK SIMPSON, Dr., Regional DAP Coordinator; MARGARET HAMBRICK, Regional Director; ED CROSLEY, Administrator; KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director of BOP; JANET RENO, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-96-1902-5) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ballenger v. Olson, No. CA-96-1902-5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the 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