Omar v. Brooks
This text of Omar v. Brooks (Omar v. Brooks) 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UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6699
PAUL M. OMAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-561)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul M. Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Paul M. Omar, a federal prisoner, appeals the magistrate
judge’s order* denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Omar v. Brooks, No. CA-02-561 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2003).
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
* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Omar v. Brooks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omar-v-brooks-ca4-2003.