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)
04-6522•Robert James Crosby v. WARDEN, Roxbury Correctional Institution
04-6522Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 8, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6522
ROBERT JAMES CROSBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Roxbury Correctional Institution; J.
JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the
State of Maryland,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-1191-WDQ)
Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert James Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland;
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Crosby appeals from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, which
challenged the revocation of his mandatory supervised release and
the subsequent denial of parole. We have reviewed the record in
this case and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Crosby v. Warden, No.
CA-03-1191-WDQ (D. Md. filed Feb. 26, 2004 & entered Mar. 1, 2004).
In addition, we note that Crosby’s claim that he was improperly
subjected to drug testing was waived by his admission to violations
of his release. Further, Crosby’s claim that he was entitled to
“necessary aftercare” was not exhausted, has been procedurally
defaulted, and cannot be reviewed on the merits. See Hamm v.
Saffle, 300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (state prisoner
bringing § 2241 petition must exhaust state and administrative
remedies). 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.