Filed: Oct. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6426 EVERETTE ATKINSON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (9:09-cv-03219-TLW) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everette Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6426 EVERETTE ATKINSON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (9:09-cv-03219-TLW) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everette Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6426
EVERETTE ATKINSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DREW,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(9:09-cv-03219-TLW)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everette Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Everette Atkinson, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Atkinson’s 28
U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) 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. Atkinson v. Drew,
No. 9:09-cv-03219-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2010). 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