Filed: Dec. 17, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7168 JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLES T. FELTS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:06-cv-01043) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7168 JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLES T. FELTS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:06-cv-01043) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Williams, Appellant Pro Se. U..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7168 JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLES T. FELTS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:06-cv-01043) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Felts, No. 5:06-cv-01043 (S.D.W. Va. June 5, 2008). 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
