Filed: Jun. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6351 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KENNY ATKINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cv-03154-GRA) Submitted: June 4, 2012 Decided: June 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Eugene Ross, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6351 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KENNY ATKINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cv-03154-GRA) Submitted: June 4, 2012 Decided: June 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Eugene Ross, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6351 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KENNY ATKINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cv-03154-GRA) Submitted: June 4, 2012 Decided: June 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Eugene Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dennis Eugene Ross, 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. See Ross v. Atkinson, No. 6:11-cv-03154-GRA (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2012). 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
