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)
08-6814•Zikiteran D. Robinson v. J. OWENS, Warden; BUREAU OF PRISONS
08-6814Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 17, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6814
ZIKITERAN D. ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. OWENS, Warden; BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (4:07-cv-03118-HMH)
Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zikiteran D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
*While Robinson sufficiently objected to the magistrate
judge’s findings regarding whether he was in the primary custody of
the federal government at the time of his arrest, he failed to
specifically object to the remainder of the magistrate judge’s
recommendations, thereby waiving appellate review of those claims.
See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007).
2
PER CURIAM:
Zikiteran D. Robinson, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. * Robinson v. Owens, No. 4:07-cv-03118-HMH (D.S.C.
Mar. 20, 2008). Additionally, we deny Robinson’s motion for
production of discovery materials. 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.