Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7107 STEVEN TODD ASHWORTH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:09-cv-01106) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Todd Ashworth, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7107 STEVEN TODD ASHWORTH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:09-cv-01106) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Todd Ashworth, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7107
STEVEN TODD ASHWORTH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-01106)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Todd Ashworth, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Todd Ashworth, 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 the
district court’s judgment. See Ashworth v. Berkebile, No. 5:09-
cv-01106 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 11, 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