Filed: Sep. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6620 DAVID P. SCHNEIDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. BRAND; K. HAWK, Dr.; T. WEST; H. LAPPIN, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-775-5-H) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6620 DAVID P. SCHNEIDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. BRAND; K. HAWK, Dr.; T. WEST; H. LAPPIN, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-775-5-H) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6620 DAVID P. SCHNEIDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. BRAND; K. HAWK, Dr.; T. WEST; H. LAPPIN, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-775-5-H) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David P. Schneider, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (1994) petition. 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. Schneider v. Brand, No. CA-96-775-5-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 1997). 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
