Case Name: Bryan Keith RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Warden FCI Gilmer, Respondent-Appellee, and Associate Warden Ferguson; Debbie J. Lohr, DHO hearing officer; Lieutenant Prince; Russell A. Perdue, Warden of FCI Gilmer, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-06
Citations: 627 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 15-7033
Parties: Bryan Keith RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Warden FCI Gilmer, Respondent-Appellee, and Associate Warden Ferguson; Debbie J. Lohr, DHO hearing officer; Lieutenant Prince; Russell A. Perdue, Warden of FCI Gilmer, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
Bryan Keith RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Warden FCI Gilmer, Respondent-Appellee, and Associate Warden Ferguson; Debbie J. Lohr, DHO hearing officer; Lieutenant Prince; Russell A. Perdue, Warden of FCI Gilmer, Respondents.
No. 15-7033.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 18, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 6, 2016.
Bryan Keith Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Keith Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Williams, No. 3:14-cv-00129-GMG-JSK, 2015 WL 3937004 (N.D.W.Va. June 26, 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.