BANKS v. RATLEDGE III (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Frederick Hamilton BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles RATLEDGE; Mark Hornak; David Hicton; Robert Cessar; United States Marshals Service; Jefferson B. Sessions III, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7355

Decided: February 02, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Hamilton Banks appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, as well as its order denying Banks’ self-styled motion to vacate that order and judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. See Banks v. Ratledge, No. 5:16-hc-02219-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2017 & Oct. 10, 2017). 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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network