Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Jimenez v. Gal, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond Jimenez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. Jimenez 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 acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Jimenez v. Gal, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    Raymond Jimenez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. Jimenez 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 acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-10-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6969

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Raymond Jimenez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. Jimenez 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 acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Jimenez v. Gal, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond Jimenez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. Jimenez 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 acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    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. 01-6969

    RAYMOND JIMENEZ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STEVEN J. GAL, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CA-01-2148-4-19BF)

    Submitted:

    August 24, 2001

    Decided:

    October 15, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Raymond Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Jimenez 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
    Jimenez v. Gal, No. CA-01-2148-4-19BF (D.S.C. May 30, 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