Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Joseph Cuciniello v. Charles Ratledge, 15-7054 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-7054 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7054 JOSEPH CUCINIELLO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02008-FL) Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
                                UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 15-7054


JOSEPH CUCINIELLO,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02008-FL)


Submitted:   November 23, 2015                Decided:    December 14, 2015


Before KING and      THACKER,    Circuit   Judges,       and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph Cuciniello, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Joseph Cuciniello, 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.     Cuciniello v. Ratledge, No. 5:15-hc-02008-FL (E.D.N.C.

June 22, 2015).          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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer