Nixon v. Dewalt

Fourth Circuit

Nixon v. Dewalt

63 F. App'x 765

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2003

DocketNo. 02-7181

StatusPublished

This text of 63 F. App'x 765 (Nixon v. Dewalt) 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

Nixon v. Dewalt, 63 F. App'x 765 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpulished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lee Nixon, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nixon v. Dewalt, No. CA-02-48-5 BO (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2002). 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

Affirmed by unpulished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lee Nixon, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nixon v. Dewalt, No. CA-02-48-5 BO (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2002). 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)

63 F. App'x 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-dewalt-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack