Filed: Dec. 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6983 KEVIN SEAN POLK, Petitioner – Appellant, v. A. F. BEELER; DAVID T. HUBAND, Respondents – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-hc-02126-D) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Sean Polk,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6983 KEVIN SEAN POLK, Petitioner – Appellant, v. A. F. BEELER; DAVID T. HUBAND, Respondents – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-hc-02126-D) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Sean Polk, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6983
KEVIN SEAN POLK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
A. F. BEELER; DAVID T. HUBAND,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02126-D)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Sean Polk, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Sean Polk, formerly a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order 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. Polk v. Beeler, No.
5:09-hc-02126-D (E.D.N.C. July 2, 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
