Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Naarl Richard v. J. Cannon, Jr., 11-7364 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-7364 Visitors: 40
Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7364 NAARL RICHARD, Petitioner – Appellant, v. J. AL CANNON, JR., Respondent – Appellee, and MATTHEW J. MODICA, USASC; JAMES R. DUFFY, DEA US, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:11-cv-01192-JFA) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-7364


NAARL RICHARD,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

J. AL CANNON, JR.,

                      Respondent – Appellee,

          and

MATTHEW J. MODICA, USASC; JAMES R. DUFFY, DEA US,

                      Respondents.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:11-cv-01192-JFA)


Submitted:   January 31, 2012             Decided:   February 3, 2012


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Naarl Richard, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Naarl   Richard,   a    federal    prisoner,   appeals   the

district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation 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.        Richard v. Cannon, No.

0:11-cv-01192-JFA (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer