Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Norberto Barrera v. Jennifer Saad, 18-7060 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-7060 Visitors: 28
Filed: Feb. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7060 NORBERTO BARRERA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JENNIFER SAAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00026-GMG) Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norberto Barre
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7060


NORBERTO BARRERA,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JENNIFER SAAD,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00026-GMG)


Submitted: February 21, 2019                                 Decided: February 25, 2019


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Norberto Barrera, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Norberto Barrera, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Barrera v. Saad, No. 3:17-cv-00026-GMG (N.D.W.

Va. Aug. 13, 2018). We deny Barrera’s motion concerning forfeiture. 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer