Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Curtis E. CRAWFORD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph M. BROOKS, Respondent—Appellee, and United States of America, Party in Interest. Curtis E. Crawford, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Regional Director Federal Bureau of Prisons; Joseph M. Brooks, Petersburg FCI Medium, Respondents—Appellees. Curtis E. Crawford, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph M. Brooks, Warden; Chairman, United States Parole Commission; District of Columbia Board of Parole, Respondents—Appellees.
    Nos. 04-7577, 04-7578, 04-7579.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
    Decided Dec. 1, 2004.
    Curtis E. Crawford, Appellant pro se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Curtis E. Crawford appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying as moot his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Crawford v. Brooks, No. CA-04-61 (E.D.Va. Sept. 21, 2004); Crawford v. Dir., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-03-472 (E.D.Va. Sept. 21, 2004); Crawford v. Brooks, No. CA-04-59 (E.D.Va. Sept. 21, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED