Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Smith v. Bureau of Prisons, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Fernando M. Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Smith's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the magistrate judge's recommendation, as adopted by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Smith v. Bureau of Prisons, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    1) Fernando M. Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Smith's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the magistrate judge's recommendation, as adopted by the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7862

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Fernando M. Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Smith's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the magistrate judge's recommendation, as adopted by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. Bureau of Prisons, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Fernando M. Smith, a federal prisoner, appealed a district court order that accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Smith's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision based on the reasoning in the magistrate judge's recommendation, as adopted by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7862

    FERNANDO M. SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BUREAU OF PRISONS; B. G. COMPTON,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (CA-03-662-7-SGW)

    Submitted:

    April 29, 2005

    Decided:

    May 11, 2005

    Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Fernando M. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Fernando
    district

    courts

    M.

    Smith,

    order

    federal

    accepting

    the

    prisoner,

    appeals

    recommendation

    of

    the
    the

    magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under


    28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000).
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

    magistrate judge as adopted by the district court.

    See Smith v.

    Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-03-662-7-SGW (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2004).


    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like