Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bryan Richardson v. Charles Williams, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Bryan Keith Richardson v. Charles Williams et al. affirming the district court's denial of Richardson's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. The three judge panel found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Richardson relief. The court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7033

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Bryan Keith Richardson v. Charles Williams et al. affirming the district court's denial of Richardson's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. The three judge panel found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Richardson relief. The court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    Bryan Richardson v. Charles Williams, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Bryan Keith Richardson v. Charles Williams et al. affirming the district court's denial of Richardson's 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. The three judge panel found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Richardson relief. The court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its opinion and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-7033

    BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON,


    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden FCI Gilmer,
    Respondent Appellee,
    and
    ASSOCIATE WARDEN FERGUSON; DEBBIE J. LOHR, DHO hearing
    officer; LIEUTENANT PRINCE; RUSSELL A. PERDUE, Warden of
    FCI Gilmer,
    Respondents.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
    District Judge. (3:14-cv-00129-GMG-JSK)

    Submitted:

    December 18, 2015

    Decided:

    January 6, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bryan Keith Richardson, Appellant


    Altmeyer, Assistant United States

    Pro Se.
    Attorney,

    Helen Campbell
    Wheeling, West

    Virginia; Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney,


    Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bryan
    district
    magistrate
    (2012)

    Keith

    Richardson,

    courts
    judge

    order
    and

    petition.

    reversible error.
    by

    the

    We

    federal

    accepting

    denying
    have

    the

    relief
    reviewed

    prisoner,

    appeals

    recommendation

    on

    his

    the

    28

    of

    U.S.C.

    record

    and

    the
    the

    2241

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    district

    court.

    Richardson

    v.

    Williams,

    3:14-cv-00129-GMG-JSK (N.D. W. Va. June 26, 2015).

    No.

    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

    You might also like