Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Devaughn v. United States, 19-405 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-405 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 05, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7391 MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN, a/k/a Michael Owen Devaughn, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-4349-2-24) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7391 MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN, a/k/a Michael Owen Devaughn, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-4349-2-24) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael O. DeVaughn, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael O. DeVaughn, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to amend the court’s earlier order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).* We have reviewed the record and find that DeVaughn failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm and deny DeVaughn’s motion to compel the Government to respond. 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 * The district court’s order accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny the § 2241 petition. - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer