Case Name: Jonathan D. BRADSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan L. DOVE, Warden; United States Attorney, for the District of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-20
Citations: 53 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 02-7356
Parties: Jonathan D. BRADSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan L. DOVE, Warden; United States Attorney, for the District of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
Jonathan D. BRADSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan L. DOVE, Warden; United States Attorney, for the District of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7356.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2002.
Decided Dec. 20, 2002.
Jonathan D. Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jonathan D. Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and denying his motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bradshaw v. Dove, No. CA-01-4236-2 (D.S.C. July 23, 2002 & Aug. 23, 2002). 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.