Cade v. O'Brien

Fourth Circuit

Cade v. O'Brien

561 F. App'x 243

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2014

DocketNo. 13-7633

StatusPublished

This text of 561 F. App'x 243 (Cade v. O'Brien) 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

Cade v. O'Brien, 561 F. App'x 243 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Cade, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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. Cade v. O’Brien, No. 2:13-cv-00045-JPB-JSK, 2013 WL 5423991 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 26, 2013). We deny Cade’s motions for in-junctive relief pending appeal and for summary judgment. 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.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Eric Cade, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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. Cade v. O’Brien, No. 2:13-cv-00045-JPB-JSK, 2013 WL 5423991 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 26, 2013). We deny Cade’s motions for in-junctive relief pending appeal and for summary judgment. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 F. App'x 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cade-v-obrien-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack