Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7622 KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E.K. CAULEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00088) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7622 KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E.K. CAULEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00088) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7622 KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E.K. CAULEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00088) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kareem Jamal Currence appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Currence leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Currence v. Cauley, No. 1:11-cv- 00088 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 8, 2014; Oct. 24, 2014). 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
