Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6861 MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRICK TRIPP, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02227-D) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6861 MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRICK TRIPP, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02227-D) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6861
MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRICK TRIPP,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02227-D)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Morris B. Fahnbulleh, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Morris B. Fahnbulleh, 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, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Fahnbulleh v. Tripp, No. 5:16-hc-02227-D
(E.D.N.C. June 28, 2017). 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