Filed: Mar. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7837 DANIEL H. KING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-hc-02038-FL) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel H. Ki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7837 DANIEL H. KING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-hc-02038-FL) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel H. Kin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7837
DANIEL H. KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES RATLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02038-FL)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel H. King, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel H. King, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
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. King v. Ratledge, No. 5:14-hc-02038-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 3,
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