Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6015 GLENN LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02412-TLW) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6015 GLENN LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02412-TLW) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6015
GLENN LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DREW,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(6:10-cv-02412-TLW)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Lee Williams, 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. Williams v. Drew,
No. 6:10-cv-02412-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 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