Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6018 JOHN J. INGRAO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1917-AM) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Ingrao, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6018 JOHN J. INGRAO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1917-AM) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Ingrao, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6018
JOHN J. INGRAO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN M. DEWALT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-97-1917-AM)
Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Ingrao, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John J. Ingrao appeals from a district court order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). In
light of our recent decision in Pelissero v. Thompson, ___ F.3d
___,
1998 WL 559663 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998) (Nos. 97-6156, 97-
6221), we affirm the district court’s denial of relief. 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