Filed: Feb. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7654 JOHN DWIGHT ABRAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-01-317-5) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Dwight A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7654 JOHN DWIGHT ABRAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-01-317-5) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Dwight Ab..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7654 JOHN DWIGHT ABRAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CA-01-317-5) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Dwight Abram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Dwight Abram 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 accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Abram v. Conley, No. CA-01-317-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 26, 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
