Filed: Feb. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7555 JOHN A. CASILLAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY RAY, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution, Estill, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-90-314, CA-96-1638-9-18JC) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7555 JOHN A. CASILLAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY RAY, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution, Estill, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-90-314, CA-96-1638-9-18JC) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7555 JOHN A. CASILLAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICKEY RAY, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution, Estill, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-90-314, CA-96-1638-9-18JC) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Casillas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (1994) petition and his motion for recon- sideration. 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. Casillas v. Ray, Nos. CR-90-314; CA-96-1638- 9-18JC (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
