Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6299 ELLOWOOD EUGENE BENNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-114) Submitted: July 6, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellowood Eugene Bennett
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6299 ELLOWOOD EUGENE BENNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-114) Submitted: July 6, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellowood Eugene Bennett,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6299
ELLOWOOD EUGENE BENNETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-114)
Submitted: July 6, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ellowood Eugene Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ellowood Eugene Bennett appeals the district court’s
judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed
the record, the district court’s order and the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Bennett v. Bledsoe, No. CA-03-114 (N.D. W. Va.
Jan. 27, 2005). 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 -