Filed: Mar. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7279 DANNY D. IRICK, a/k/a Danny Dewayne Irick, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. MANSUKHANI, Warden, Respondent - Appellee, and C. SAMUELS, Director; E. HOLDER, United States Attorney General, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:14-cv-00183-TMC) Submitted: February 6, 2015 Decided: March 26, 2015 Before KING and SHEDD, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7279 DANNY D. IRICK, a/k/a Danny Dewayne Irick, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. MANSUKHANI, Warden, Respondent - Appellee, and C. SAMUELS, Director; E. HOLDER, United States Attorney General, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:14-cv-00183-TMC) Submitted: February 6, 2015 Decided: March 26, 2015 Before KING and SHEDD, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7279
DANNY D. IRICK, a/k/a Danny Dewayne Irick,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. MANSUKHANI, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
C. SAMUELS, Director; E. HOLDER, United States Attorney
General,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-00183-TMC)
Submitted: February 6, 2015 Decided: March 26, 2015
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny D. Irick, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danny D. Irick, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Irick v. Mansukhani, No. 8:14-cv-00183-TMC
(D.S.C. Aug. 18, 2014). We grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. 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