Fred Haywood v. C v. Rivera

Eighth Circuit

Fred Haywood v. C v. Rivera

674 F. App'x 596

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 2017

Docket16-2615

StatusUnpublished

This text of 674 F. App'x 596 (Fred Haywood v. C v. Rivera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fred Haywood v. C v. Rivera, 674 F. App'x 596 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*597 PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Fred Haywood appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Upon careful de novo review, see Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977, 980 (8th Cir. 2011), we conclude the action was properly dismissed for the reasons stated in the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

*597 PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Fred Haywood appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Upon careful de novo review, see Flowers v. Anderson, 661 F.3d 977, 980 (8th Cir. 2011), we conclude the action was properly dismissed for the reasons stated in the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 F. App'x 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-haywood-v-c-v-rivera-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack