Filed: Apr. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6109 KYLE LUNNIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MANSUKHANI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02292-BO) Submitted: April 18, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kyle Lunnin, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6109 KYLE LUNNIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MANSUKHANI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02292-BO) Submitted: April 18, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kyle Lunnin, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6109 KYLE LUNNIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MANSUKHANI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02292-BO) Submitted: April 18, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kyle Lunnin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kyle Lunnin, a federal prisoner, 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Lunnin v. Mansukhani, No. 5:18-hc-02292-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2018). 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
