Filed: Oct. 07, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6668 LESLIE ATKINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-526-BO-5) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Atkinson, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6668 LESLIE ATKINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-526-BO-5) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Atkinson, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6668 LESLIE ATKINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-526-BO-5) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leslie Atkinson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Atkinson v. Dewalt, No. CA-02-526-BO-5 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 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. AFFIRMED 2
