Filed: Jan. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7396 CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH OLSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-1023-1) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Goodwin Perkins,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7396 CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH OLSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-1023-1) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Goodwin Perkins, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7396 CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH OLSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-1023-1) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Goodwin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clarence Goodwin Perkins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 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. See Perkins v. Olson, No. CA-97-1023-1 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 1998). 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
