Stephens v. Dunbar

Fourth Circuit

Stephens v. Dunbar

551 F. App'x 62

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 23, 2014·No. No. 13-7269·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Leon Stephens, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stephens v. Dunbar, No. 5:12-hc-02035-FL, 2013 WL 3924013 (E.D.N.C. July 29, 2013). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Nathan Leon Stephens, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stephens v. Dunbar, No. 5:12-hc-02035-FL, 2013 WL 3924013 (E.D.N.C. July 29, 2013). 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.

Stephens v. Dunbar, 551 F. App'x 62 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

551 F. App'x 62 (Stephens v. Dunbar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related