Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7356 JONATHAN D. BRADSHAW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, for the District of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-4236-2) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7356 JONATHAN D. BRADSHAW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, for the District of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-4236-2) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7356 JONATHAN D. BRADSHAW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, for the District of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-4236-2) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan D. Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jonathan D. Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and denying his motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bradshaw v. Dove, No. CA-01-4236-2 (D.S.C. July 23, 2002 & Aug. 23, 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