Filed: Dec. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7100 BUTTON JACK RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-735) Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Button Jack Rhodes, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7100 BUTTON JACK RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-735) Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Button Jack Rhodes, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7100 BUTTON JACK RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-03-735) Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Button Jack Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Button Jack Rhodes, 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 Rhodes v. Brooks, No. CA-03-735 (E.D. Va. June 25, 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 -
