Richardson v. Thompson

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. Thompson

635 F. App'x 94

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 2, 2016·No. No. 15-7920·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Richardson, 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 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm' for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Thompson, No. 4:15-cv-02638-RBH, 2015 WL 7428567 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Richardson, 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 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm' for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Thompson, No. 4:15-cv-02638-RBH, 2015 WL 7428567 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Richardson v. Thompson, 635 F. App'x 94 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

635 F. App'x 94 (Richardson v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related