Filed: Feb. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7508 LUIS FIGUEROA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN GIO RAMIREZ, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01965-RBH) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Figueroa, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7508 LUIS FIGUEROA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN GIO RAMIREZ, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01965-RBH) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Figueroa, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7508
LUIS FIGUEROA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN GIO RAMIREZ,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01965-RBH)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luis Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Figueroa, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Figueroa’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Figueroa v.
Ramirez, No. 1:17-cv-01965-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 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