Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 114 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: Nos. 04-7577, 04-7578, 04-7579
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 113–113

Head Matter:
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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Opinion:
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