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)
06-7110•Robert Junior Wardrick v. Warden
06-7110Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 1, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7110
ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv-
01274-AMD)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
*To the extent Wardrick may be seeking authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion, challenging the search and seizure warrant,
we deny authorization.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert Wardrick, a federal inmate, appeals a district
court order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district
court order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court.
See Wardrick v. Warden, No. 1:06-cv-01274-AMD (D. Md. May 30,
2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials in 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.