Murray v. Francis

Fourth Circuit

Murray v. Francis

259 F. App'x 569

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 21, 2007·No. 07-7499·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William Wise Murray, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Murray v. Francis, No. 2:05-cv-00096, 2007 WL 2815441 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 25, 2007). We grant Murray’s motion to supplement the informal brief and deny the motion to appoint counsel. 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:

William Wise Murray, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Murray v. Francis, No. 2:05-cv-00096, 2007 WL 2815441 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 25, 2007). We grant Murray’s motion to supplement the informal brief and deny the motion to appoint counsel. 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.

Murray v. Francis, 259 F. App'x 569 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

259 F. App'x 569 (Murray v. Francis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related