Filed: Jan. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6708 BOBBY O. FOSTER, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. D. DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00118-GCM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 11, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6708 BOBBY O. FOSTER, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. D. DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00118-GCM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 11, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6708 BOBBY O. FOSTER, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. D. DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00118-GCM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 11, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby O. Foster, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby O. Foster, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Foster v. Drew, No. 3:09-cv-00118-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2009). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
