Filed: Aug. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6665 DANNY L. BLACKMON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Warden et al., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:09-cv-03035-HFF) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6665 DANNY L. BLACKMON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Warden et al., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:09-cv-03035-HFF) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6665
DANNY L. BLACKMON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DREW, Warden et al.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-03035-HFF)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny L. Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danny Lynn Blackmon, 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.A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Blackmon v. Drew, No.
09-cv-03035-HFF (D.S.C. Apr. 8. 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