Richard Rudisill v. Craig Apker


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999556589-2] Originating case number: 5:12-hc-02311-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000090020]. Mailed to: Richard Donnell Rudisill FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER P. O. Box 1600 Butner, NC 27509-0000. [15-6176]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6176 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6176 RICHARD RUDISILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN CRAIG APKER, Warden, FMC Butner, Respondent - Appellee, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02311-BO) Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Donnell Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Appeal: 15-6176 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-6176 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/30/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Richard Donnell Rudisill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rudisill v. Apker, No. 5:12-hc-02311-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?