Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6576 JAMES DEVON POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, FCI Petersburg, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-37-2) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6576 JAMES DEVON POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, FCI Petersburg, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-37-2) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6576 JAMES DEVON POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, FCI Petersburg, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-37-2) Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Devon Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Devon Powell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to restrain or enjoin prison officials from collecting court-ordered restitution and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Powell v. United States, No. CA-04-37-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2004 & Mar. 24, 2004). 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 -