Filed: Sep. 15, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6907 GERALD R. ST. VINCENT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JOEL J. ZIEGLER, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00186-JPB-JES) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 15, 2009 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ger
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6907 GERALD R. ST. VINCENT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JOEL J. ZIEGLER, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00186-JPB-JES) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 15, 2009 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gera..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6907 GERALD R. ST. VINCENT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JOEL J. ZIEGLER, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00186-JPB-JES) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 15, 2009 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald R. St. Vincent, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerald R. St. Vincent, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss and deny 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. See St. Vincent v. Ziegler, No. 3:08-cv-00186- JPB-JES (N.D.W. Va. April 29, 2009). 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
