Bailey v. Braxton

Fourth Circuit

Bailey v. Braxton

482 F. App'x 857

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 16, 2012·No. No. 12-7235·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Ray Bailey, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a § 2254 petition and dismissing the case without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Bailey leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bailey v. [858] Braxton, No. 3:12-cv-00422-JRS (E.D.Va. July 9, 2012). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Ray Bailey, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a § 2254 petition and dismissing the case without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Bailey leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bailey v. [858] Braxton, No. 3:12-cv-00422-JRS (E.D.Va. July 9, 2012). 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.

Bailey v. Braxton, 482 F. App'x 857 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

482 F. App'x 857 (Bailey v. Braxton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.