Filed: Mar. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7920 CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale Richardson, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PHILLIP THOMPSON, Sheriff of Horry County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cv-02638-RBH) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7920 CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale Richardson, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PHILLIP THOMPSON, Sheriff of Horry County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cv-02638-RBH) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7920
CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis
Dale Richardson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PHILLIP THOMPSON, Sheriff of Horry County,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-02638-RBH)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on 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. Richardson v. Thompson, No. 4:15-cv-02638-RBH (D.S.C. Nov.
20, 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