Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Isley v. Dove, 04-7766 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7766 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7766 EDWARD ISLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-4649-8) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Af
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7766 EDWARD ISLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-4649-8) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Isley, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward Isley, 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). Isley also appeals the court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Isley v. Dove, No. CA-01-4649-8 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2003; Sept. 28, 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 -
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