Filed: Mar. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7740 CHARLES J. SPIGNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2769) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles J. Spigner, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7740 CHARLES J. SPIGNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2769) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles J. Spigner, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7740 CHARLES J. SPIGNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2769) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles J. Spigner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles J. Spigner, 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Spigner v. Maldonado, No. CA-03-2769 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 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 -
