Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Mark Edwards, Sr. v. R. A. Perdue, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mark R. Edwards, Sr.'s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Mark Edwards, Sr. v. R. A. Perdue, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mark R. Edwards, Sr.'s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-09-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6909

    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 affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mark R. Edwards, Sr.'s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    Copyright:

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

    Mark Edwards, Sr. v. R. A. Perdue, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mark R. Edwards, Sr.'s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

    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. 15-6909

    MARK R. EDWARDS, SR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    R.A. PERDUE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00136-FPS-JSK)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 2015

    Decided:

    September 1, 2015

    Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mark R. Edwards, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Helen Campbell
    Wheeling, West

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark
    district

    R.

    Edwards,

    courts

    magistrate

    judge

    Sr.,

    order
    and

    federal

    accepting

    dismissing

    prisoner,

    the

    his

    appeals

    recommendation

    28

    U.S.C.

    of

    2241

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    the

    (2012)

    petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(a) (2012).


    have

    the

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Edwards v. Perdue, No. 5:14-cv-00136-FPS-JSK (N.D.W. Va.

    May 15, 2015).

    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