Filed: May 26, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7579 JOSEPH ANDREW DAVIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (0:07-cv-01670-TLW) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Andrew Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7579 JOSEPH ANDREW DAVIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (0:07-cv-01670-TLW) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Andrew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7579 JOSEPH ANDREW DAVIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (0:07-cv-01670-TLW) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Andrew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Andrew Davis, 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 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Pettiford, No. 0:07-cv-01670- TLW (D.S.C. July 23, 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
