Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7678 HUGH MINGO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-01-2764-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7678 HUGH MINGO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-01-2764-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7678 HUGH MINGO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-01-2764-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Hugh Mingo appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mingo v. Dove, No. CA-01-2764-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2001). 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
