Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6324 CLIFTON BERNARD HICKEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-01-183-5) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Bernard Hickey, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6324 CLIFTON BERNARD HICKEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-01-183-5) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Bernard Hickey, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6324 CLIFTON BERNARD HICKEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOYCE K. CONLEY, Dr., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-01-183-5) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Bernard Hickey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clifton Bernard Hickey 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 recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hickey v. Conley, No. CA-01-183-5 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 1, 2002). 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
