Filed: Nov. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7241 HAROLD LEE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KENNY ATKINSON, Respondent – Appellee, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:13-cv-00384-RMG) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7241 HAROLD LEE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KENNY ATKINSON, Respondent – Appellee, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:13-cv-00384-RMG) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7241
HAROLD LEE SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KENNY ATKINSON,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (9:13-cv-00384-RMG)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Lee Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Smith’s 28
U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v.
Atkinson, No. 9:13-cv-00384-RMG (D.S.C. July 23, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2