Aiken v. Dodrill

Fourth Circuit

Aiken v. Dodrill

30 F. App'x 143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2002

Docket01-8107

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 F. App'x 143 (Aiken v. Dodrill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aiken v. Dodrill, 30 F. App'x 143 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Willie Aiken appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Aiken v. Dodrill, No. CA-01-811-5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Willie Aiken appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Aiken v. Dodrill, No. CA-01-811-5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aiken-v-dodrill-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack