Filed: Jun. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6131 JOHN GUY DAVIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. ERIC WILSON, Warden Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00004-REP-RCY) Submitted: May 31, 2018 Decided: June 7, 2018 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Guy Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6131 JOHN GUY DAVIS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. ERIC WILSON, Warden Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00004-REP-RCY) Submitted: May 31, 2018 Decided: June 7, 2018 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Guy Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6131
JOHN GUY DAVIS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ERIC WILSON, Warden
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00004-REP-RCY)
Submitted: May 31, 2018 Decided: June 7, 2018
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Guy Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Guy Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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 the
district court’s judgment. Davis v. Wilson, No. 3:17-cv-00004-REP-RCY (E.D. Va. Dec.
6, 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