Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

I v. Ashcroft, 02-6217 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6217 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6217 JOHN LUHON I, a/k/a Alvon Allen Thomas, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-7) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6217 JOHN LUHON I, a/k/a Alvon Allen Thomas, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-7) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Luhon I, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Luhon I appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 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 I’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See I v. Ashcroft, No. CA-02-7 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 14, 2002; entered Jan. 15, 2002). We have previously granted I’s motion to amend the caption to reflect his name change for purposes of this appeal. I has now filed a motion to compel the Bureau of Prisons to change his name from Alvon Allen Thomas to John Luhon I. We deny this motion without prejudice to his right to move the district court to compel recognition of his name change. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer