The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-6941•Michael Curtis Reynolds v. JENNIFER SAAD, Warden
18-6941Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 20, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6941
MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JENNIFER SAAD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00124-IMK)
Submitted: September 14, 2018 Decided: September 20, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Curtis Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Curtis Reynolds, 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. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reynolds’ informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Reynolds has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is
limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We deny Reynolds’ motions to compel, to show cause, for summary judgment,
and for a hearing. We deny as moot Reynolds’ motion for release pending appeal. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.