Barton Adams v. Warden Anne Carter


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999588195-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999627395-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00065-JPB-JES. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999651612]. Mailed to: Barton Adams. [15-6625]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6625 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6625 BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ANNE MARIE CARTER, FCI Morgantown, 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-00065-JPB-JES) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barton Joseph Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6625 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Barton Joseph Adams, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as moot his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, the although record we and grant find no leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Adams v. Warden, No. 2:14-cv-00065-JPB-JES (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 7, 2015). We deny Adams’ motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?