Caesarea James v. Anne Carter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999539416-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999539428-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00042-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999712389]. Mailed to: Caesarea Develle James RRM DETROIT P. O. Box 117 Ortonville, MI 48462. [15-6154]

Appeal: 15-6154

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6154

CAESAREA DEVELLE JAMES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANNE MARY CARTER, The Warden of MCI
Correctional Institution of Morgantown,

of

the

Federal

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00042-JPB-JES)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

December 4, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Caesarea Develle James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6154

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Caesarea Develle James, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate

judge

to

deny

relief

on

James’

28

U.S.C.

(2012) petition and/or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. *
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

§ 2241
We have

Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court.

James v. Carter,

No.

29,

2:14-cv-00042-JPB-JES

(N.D.

W.

Va.

Oct.

2014).

We

further deny as moot James’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

We construed James’ untimely notice of appeal as a motion
for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and,
accordingly, remanded to the district court to determine whether
James
had
demonstrated
excusable
neglect
or
good
cause
warranting an extension of the appeal period.
On remand, the
district court made the necessary findings and granted the
motion for extension of time.

2