Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cherry v. Garraghty, 03-6184 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6184 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6184 MELVIN CHERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden of the Greensville Correctional Center; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-171) Submitted: May 14, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6184 MELVIN CHERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden of the Greensville Correctional Center; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-171) Submitted: May 14, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George Maralan Kelley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Melvin Cherry, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Cherry v. Garraghty, No. CA-02-171 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2003). 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