Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Abdul-Sattar v. Weldon, 99-6429 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6429 Visitors: 90
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6429 AHMAD KAIS ABDUL-SATTAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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