Filed: Feb. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7439 TERRENCE BRAXTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-63-2) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Braxton, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7439 TERRENCE BRAXTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-63-2) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Braxton, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7439 TERRENCE BRAXTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-63-2) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Laurie Marie Everhart, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terrence Braxton appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Braxton v. Brooks, No. CA-03-63-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 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 -
