Hutchins v. Beeler

Fourth Circuit

Hutchins v. Beeler

329 F. App'x 487

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 29, 2009·No. No. 09-6202·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James H. Hutchins appeals a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition and denying his second motion to amend his petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Hutchins v. Beeler, No. 5:08-hc-02042-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2009). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

James H. Hutchins appeals a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition and denying his second motion to amend his petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Hutchins v. Beeler, No. 5:08-hc-02042-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2009). 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.

Hutchins v. Beeler, 329 F. App'x 487 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

329 F. App'x 487 (Hutchins v. Beeler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related