Filed: Jul. 13, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6618 MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES T. FELTS, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (5:06-cv-00629) Submitted: June 27, 2007 Decided: July 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Kokoski, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6618 MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES T. FELTS, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (5:06-cv-00629) Submitted: June 27, 2007 Decided: July 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Kokoski, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6618 MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES T. FELTS, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (5:06-cv-00629) Submitted: June 27, 2007 Decided: July 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Kokoski, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kokoski v. Felts, No. 5:06-cv-00629 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 12, 2007). 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 -
