Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cruz v. Dove, 02-6476 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6476 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6476 CARLOS BIENUENIDO CRUZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - EDGEFIELD; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-2339-2-24-AJ) Submitted: December 11, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Cir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6476 CARLOS BIENUENIDO CRUZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - EDGEFIELD; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-2339-2-24-AJ) Submitted: December 11, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Bienuenido Cruz, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Carlos Bienuenido Cruz, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cruz v. Dove, No. CA-01-2339-2-24-AJ (D.S.C. filed Feb. 28, 2002, entered Mar. 4, 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
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