Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ray v. Hamidullah, 07-7121 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7121 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7121 MICHAEL R. RAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden of FCI Estill; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:06-cv-01201-RBH; 4:06-cv-01178-RBH) Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7121 MICHAEL R. RAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden of FCI Estill; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:06-cv-01201-RBH; 4:06-cv-01178-RBH) Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael R. Ray, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254 (2000) and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to the denial of § 2254 relief and affirm as to the denial of § 2241 relief for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ray v. Hamidullah, Nos. 4:06-cv-01178-RBH; 4:06-cv-01201-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 6 & July 17, 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. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART - 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