The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-6738•Vincent Merricks v. DAN L. DOVE, Warden
02-6738Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 5, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6738
VINCENT MERRICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-2538)
Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Merricks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Merricks appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Merricks v. Dove, No. CA-01-2538 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2002).
We also deny Merricks’ motion to amend his § 2241 petition. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.