Filed: Jan. 14, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6776 DOUGLAS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE JAMES THOMPSON, Warden; FEDERAL CORREC- TIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-48-1) Submitted: December 3, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6776 DOUGLAS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE JAMES THOMPSON, Warden; FEDERAL CORREC- TIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-48-1) Submitted: December 3, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6776 DOUGLAS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE JAMES THOMPSON, Warden; FEDERAL CORREC- TIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-48-1) Submitted: December 3, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Douglas Ross appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ross v. Thompson, No. CA-96-48-1 (N.D.W. Va. May 1, 1996).* 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 * In light of this disposition, Appellant's motions to expedite and for bail pending appeal are denied as moot. 2