Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McLamb v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Thomas Lattie McLamb, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling. The appellate court granted McLamb's motion to file an additional brief but found oral argument was not necessary, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court. The district court's denial of McLamb's § 2241 petition was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7814

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Thomas Lattie McLamb, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling. The appellate court granted McLamb's motion to file an additional brief but found oral argument was not necessary, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court. The district court's denial of McLamb's § 2241 petition was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    McLamb v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Thomas Lattie McLamb, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which was denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling. The appellate court granted McLamb's motion to file an additional brief but found oral argument was not necessary, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court. The district court's denial of McLamb's § 2241 petition was affirmed.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7814

    THOMAS LATTIE MCLAMB,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, LSCI Butner,
    North Carolina,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-600-5-FL)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 2005

    Decided:

    June 6, 2005

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas Lattie McLamb, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Lattie McLamb, a federal prisoner, appeals the
    district courts order 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 McLamb v. Stansberry, No. CA-04-600-5-FL

    (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2004).

    We grant McLambs motion to file a

    document styled as a formal brief, and we have considered the


    arguments therein.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like