Snipe v. Phillips

Fourth Circuit

Snipe v. Phillips

367 F. App'x 471

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 23, 2010·No. No. 09-6235·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald S. Snipe, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting in part and rejecting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Snipe v. Phillips, No. 3:08-cv-00022-JPB-JSK, 2008 WL 5412868 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 23, 2008). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald S. Snipe, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting in part and rejecting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Snipe v. Phillips, No. 3:08-cv-00022-JPB-JSK, 2008 WL 5412868 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 23, 2008). 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.

Snipe v. Phillips, 367 F. App'x 471 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

367 F. App'x 471 (Snipe v. Phillips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related