Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Middleton v. WA State Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from three Washington state inmates who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court had dismissed the petition for improper venue. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that venue was improper.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-03-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6021

    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 dismissed an appeal from three Washington state inmates who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court had dismissed the petition for improper venue. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that venue was improper.

    Copyright:

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

    Middleton v. WA State Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from three Washington state inmates who had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court had dismissed the petition for improper venue. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that venue was improper.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-6021

    SAMUEL A. MIDDLETON; DAVID LEE SYKES; JOHN A.


    COLE,
    Petitioners - Appellants,
    versus
    WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    CORPORATION; JOSEPH LEHMAN, Secretary; ELDON
    VAIL; JAMES THATCHER; MARK MCKINNA; ED
    RODENBECK; RANDY TATE; CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
    CORPORATION; DOMINION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-01-867)

    Submitted:

    February 21, 2002

    Decided:

    March 7, 2002

    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Samuel A. Middleton, David Lee Sykes, John A. Cole, Appellants Pro
    Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants, who are Washington state inmates, appeal the district courts order dismissing their petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2241 (1994) for improper venue.
    the

    district

    courts

    opinion

    We have reviewed the record and


    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


    appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See Middleton v.

    Washington State Dept of Corr. Corp., No. CA-01-867 (E.D. Va. Nov.
    20, 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like