Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Mingo v. Dove, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Hugh Mingo filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Mingo appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Mingo v. Dove, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Hugh Mingo filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Mingo appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-12-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7678

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Hugh Mingo filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Mingo appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Mingo v. Dove, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Hugh Mingo filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Mingo appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error in the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 01-7678

    HUGH MINGO,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DAN L. DOVE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (CA-01-2764-2-18AJ)

    Submitted:

    November 28, 2001

    Decided:

    December 5, 2001

    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Hugh Mingo, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Hugh Mingo appeals the district courts order denying relief
    on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition.

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion adopting the magistrate


    judges recommendation and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly,

    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Mingo v.

    Dove, No. CA-01-2764-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2001).

    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

    You might also like