Steven Prentice v. Justin Andrew
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999701589-2]; terminating Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999693897-2], terminating Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999680731-2] Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02062-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: S. Prentice. [15-7542]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
JUSTIN ANDREWS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02062-BO)
February 23, 2016
February 26, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Dixon Prentice, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley,
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *
v. Andrews, No. 5:14-hc-02062-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2015; Sept.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
To the extent Prentice challenges the amount collected by
the Bureau of Prisons, he failed to show exhaustion of his
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?