Filed: Jul. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6144 TAVARRAS RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JENNIFER SAAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00004-JPB) Submitted: June 25, 2020 Decided: July 8, 2020 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavarras
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6144 TAVARRAS RHODES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JENNIFER SAAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00004-JPB) Submitted: June 25, 2020 Decided: July 8, 2020 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavarras ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6144
TAVARRAS RHODES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JENNIFER SAAD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00004-JPB)
Submitted: June 25, 2020 Decided: July 8, 2020
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tavarras Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tavarras Rhodes, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018)
petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Rhodes v. Saad, No. 5:19-cv-00004-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 6, 2020); see also Braswell v.
Smith,
952 F.3d 441, 450 (4th Cir. 2020). 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