Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6571 JOTHAM SIMMONS, a/k/a Johnathan Rashad Simmons, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ANTONELLI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (5:17-cv-03019-RBH) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6571 JOTHAM SIMMONS, a/k/a Johnathan Rashad Simmons, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ANTONELLI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (5:17-cv-03019-RBH) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6571
JOTHAM SIMMONS, a/k/a Johnathan Rashad Simmons,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ANTONELLI,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (5:17-cv-03019-RBH)
Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jotham Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jotham Simmons, 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 grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Simmons v. Antonelli, No. 5:17-cv-03019-RBH (D.S.C., May 3, 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