Filed: Apr. 27, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6282 HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. PATRICIA STANSBURY, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00061-HCM-FBS) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry McKinley
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6282 HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT, Petitioner – Appellant, v. PATRICIA STANSBURY, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00061-HCM-FBS) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry McKinley S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6282
HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA STANSBURY,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00061-HCM-FBS)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry McKinley Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry McKinley Scott, 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. Scott v. Stansbury, No.
2:10-cv-00061-HCM-FBS (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 3, 2011 & entered
Feb. 4, 2011). 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