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)
03-6699•Paul M. Omar v. JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden
03-6699Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 17, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6699
PAUL M. OMAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-02-561)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul M. Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
2
PER CURIAM:
Paul M. Omar, a federal prisoner, appeals the magistrate
judge’s order * denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Omar v. Brooks, No. CA-02-561 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2003).
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.