Rangel v. Stansberry

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6387

JOE RANGEL,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA STANSBERRY,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00782-MHL)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Rangel, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Joe Rangel, a federal prisoner, appeals the magistrate

judge’s order * denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West

2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Rangel v. Stansberry,

No. 3:08-cv-00782-MHL (E.D. Va., Jan. 12, 2010). We deny

Rangel’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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 exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).