Keith Fisher v. R. L. Morrison

Eighth Circuit

Keith Fisher v. R. L. Morrison

258 F. App'x 73

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2007

Docket06-2775

StatusUnpublished

This text of 258 F. App'x 73 (Keith Fisher v. R. L. Morrison) 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

Keith Fisher v. R. L. Morrison, 258 F. App'x 73 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Keith Fisher appeals the district court’s 1 partial denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Following de novo review, see Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.2003), we agree with the district court that the Bureau of Prisons had no obligation to consider Fisher for immediate placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC), see Fults v. Sanders, 442 F.3d 1088, 1089-90 (8th Cir.2006), and we decline to consider Fisher’s newly raised claim that he is entitled to immediate RRC placement based on extraordinary family circumstances, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm under 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Keith Fisher appeals the district court’s 1 partial denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Following de novo review, see Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.2003), we agree with the district court that the Bureau of Prisons had no obligation to consider Fisher for immediate placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC), see Fults v. Sanders, 442 F.3d 1088, 1089-90 (8th Cir.2006), and we decline to consider Fisher’s newly raised claim that he is entitled to immediate RRC placement based on extraordinary family circumstances, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm under 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F. App'x 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-fisher-v-r-l-morrison-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack