Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6559 ALBERT MANNING SCOTT, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIE J. SCOTT, in his capacity as Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-509-1) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHIL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6559 ALBERT MANNING SCOTT, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIE J. SCOTT, in his capacity as Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-509-1) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILL..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6559 ALBERT MANNING SCOTT, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIE J. SCOTT, in his capacity as Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-509-1) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Manning Scott, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Albert Manning Scott, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See No. CA-98-509-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 1999). 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
