Isley v. Dove
This text of Isley v. Dove (Isley v. Dove) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7766
EDWARD ISLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAN L. DOVE, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-4649-8)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Isley, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Edward Isley, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000). Isley also appeals the court’s order denying his motion
filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Isley v. Dove, No. CA-01-4649-8
(D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2003; Sept. 28, 2004). 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Isley v. Dove, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isley-v-dove-ca4-2005.