Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mitchell v. Maldonado, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Mitchell's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Mitchell's petition. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6167

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Mitchell's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Mitchell's petition. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    Mitchell v. Maldonado, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Mitchell's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Mitchell's petition. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6167

    JOHN MITCHELL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GERALD
    MALDONADO,
    JR.,
    Warden,
    Federal
    Correctional Institution at Estill, South
    Carolina,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-04-1673-8-18BI)

    Submitted:

    June 23, 2005

    Decided:

    June 29, 2005

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    John Mitchell, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
    courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and 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


    Mitchell v. Maldonado, No. CA-04-1673-8-18BI (D.S.C. Nov. 29,
    2004); see also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like