Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McCollough v. O'Brien, 07-7091 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7091 Visitors: 31
Filed: Dec. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7091 SAMMIE LAMONT MCCOLLOUGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00712-jct) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Lamont Mc
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7091 SAMMIE LAMONT MCCOLLOUGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00712-jct) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Lamont McCollough, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sammie Lamont McCollough, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 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. See McCollough v. O’Brien, No. 7:06-cv-00712- jct (W.D. Va. July 10, 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 * The district court mistakenly referred to this action as one proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) in its final order. We conclude this was a clerical error, as the court properly referred to the action as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in its memorandum opinion. - 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