Filed: Jul. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6778 MARIO HOWARD LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1604-2-12) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6778 MARIO HOWARD LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1604-2-12) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. M..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6778 MARIO HOWARD LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1604-2-12) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Howard Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mario Howard Lloyd, 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lloyd v. Maldonado, No. CA-02-1604-2-12 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
