Filed: Aug. 05, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6394 CALVIN LAVAN CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN R. OWENS, Warden, FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00006-SB) Submitted: July 26, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Lavan Cl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6394 CALVIN LAVAN CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN R. OWENS, Warden, FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00006-SB) Submitted: July 26, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Lavan Cla..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6394
CALVIN LAVAN CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN R. OWENS, Warden, FCI WILLIAMSBURG,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00006-SB)
Submitted: July 26, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Lavan Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Lavan Clark, 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. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Clark v. Owens, No. 1:11-
cv-00006-SB (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 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