Filed: Dec. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6056 VIRGIL FRANKLIN RYDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. GAINES; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-580-5-F) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6056 VIRGIL FRANKLIN RYDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. GAINES; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-580-5-F) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismiss..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6056 VIRGIL FRANKLIN RYDER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. GAINES; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-580-5-F) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Virgil Franklin Ryder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Virgil Franklin Ryder appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for declaratory relief construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Ryder’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Ryder v. Gaines, No. CA-98-580-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 1998). 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. DISMISSED 2
