Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Minuto v. Wendt, 05-6729 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6729 Visitors: 2
Filed: May 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6729 MARCO MINUTO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEVIN WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Defendant - Appellee. No. 05-7358 MARCO MINUTO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEVIN WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6729 MARCO MINUTO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEVIN WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Defendant - Appellee. No. 05-7358 MARCO MINUTO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEVIN WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-87-1; CA-04-87-1-IMK) Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marco Minuto, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Marco Minuto appeals from the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, and denying his subsequent motion for clarification. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Minuto v. Wendt, Nos. CA-04-87-1; CA-04-87-1-IMK (N.D. W. Va. May 3 & Aug. 8, 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 - 3 -
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