King v. Ratledge
This text of 669 F. App'x 99 (King v. Ratledge) 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Daniel H, King, a District of Columbia Code offender civilly committed under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. 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. King v. Ratledge, No. 5:15-hc-02183-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2016). 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
669 F. App'x 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-ratledge-ca4-2016.