Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6429 AHMAD KAIS ABDUL-SATTAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-79-6-19AK) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6429 AHMAD KAIS ABDUL-SATTAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-79-6-19AK) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6429
AHMAD KAIS ABDUL-SATTAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional
Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-99-79-6-19AK)
Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmad Kais Abdul-Sattar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ahmad Kais Abdul-Sattar, a South Carolina inmate, appeals from
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Abdul-Sattar’s 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. The district court dismissed Abdul-
Sattar’s petition without prejudice because it raised claims prop-
erly brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). Because
a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993). 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.
DISMISSED
2