Case Name: Marco MINUTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Defendant-Appellee; Marco Minuto, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin Wendt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-26
Citations: 182 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: Nos. 05-6729, 05-7358
Parties: Marco MINUTO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kevin WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Defendant—Appellee. Marco Minuto, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Kevin Wendt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
Marco MINUTO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kevin WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Defendant—Appellee. Marco Minuto, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Kevin Wendt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Gilmer, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 05-6729, 05-7358.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 8, 2006.
Decided: May 26, 2006.
Marco Minuto, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Marco Minuto appeals from the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, and denying his subsequent motion for clarification. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Minuto v. Wendt, Nos. CA-04-87-1; CA-04-87-1-IMK (N.D. W. Va. May 3 & Aug. 8, 2005). 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