Filed: Feb. 13, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7444 CHRISTOPHER GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-05-737-18BD) Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Green, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7444 CHRISTOPHER GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-05-737-18BD) Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Green, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7444 CHRISTOPHER GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-05-737-18BD) Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Green, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Green, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Therefore, although we grant the motion to amend, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. LaManna, No. CA-05-737-18BD (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 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 -
