Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Condem v. Conley, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Joseph F. Condem filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Condem appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial or the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Condem's § 2241 petition based on the reasoning in the lower court decisions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Condem v. Conley, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Joseph F. Condem filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Condem appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial or the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Condem's § 2241 petition based on the reasoning in the lower court decisions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-10-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6891

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Joseph F. Condem filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Condem appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial or the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Condem's § 2241 petition based on the reasoning in the lower court decisions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Condem v. Conley, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Joseph F. Condem filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Condem appealed the denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's denial or the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Condem's § 2241 petition based on the reasoning in the lower court decisions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6891

    JOSEPH F. CONDEM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOYCE K. CONLEY,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-01-325-5)

    Submitted:

    October 18, 2001

    Decided:

    October 25, 2001

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joseph F. Condem, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

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

    We have reviewed

    the record, the magistrate judges report and recommendation, and


    the district courts opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and magistrate judge.
    May 17, 2001).

    See Condem v. Conley, No. CA-091-325-5 (S.D.W. Va.


    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