McCoy v. Deboo

Fourth Circuit

McCoy v. Deboo

466 F. App'x 204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 22, 2012

DocketNo. 11-7480

StatusPublished

This text of 466 F. App'x 204 (McCoy v. Deboo) 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.

Bluebook

McCoy v. Deboo, 466 F. App'x 204 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Wayne McCoy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 [205]*205U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition and his motion to contact jurors. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. McCoy v. DeBoo, No. 2:11—cv-00076-JPB-DJJ, 2011 WL 5087178 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 26, 2011). In addition, we have considered McCoy’s motion to contact jurors separately from his § 2241 petition, and we find it was correctly denied. We deny McCoy’s motion for a transcript at Government expense. 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

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Wayne McCoy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 [205]*205U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition and his motion to contact jurors. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. McCoy v. DeBoo, No. 2:11—cv-00076-JPB-DJJ, 2011 WL 5087178 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 26, 2011). In addition, we have considered McCoy’s motion to contact jurors separately from his § 2241 petition, and we find it was correctly denied. We deny McCoy’s motion for a transcript at Government expense. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 F. App'x 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-deboo-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack