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)
22-6169•Chief) Col. Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey v. WARDEN, FCI Beckley
22-6169Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 17, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6169
(CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI Beckley,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 22-6170
(CHIEF) COL. MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI Beckley,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00367; 5:21-cv-00387, 5:21-cv-
00492)
Submitted: July 3, 2023 Decided: July 17, 2023
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
(Chief) Col. Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge in part, dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petitions without prejudice for failure to assert cognizable habeas claims, denying
his motion for reconsideration, and imposing a pre-filing injunction.* We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
See Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Warden, No. 5:21-cv-00367 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 4, 2022; Jan. 19,
2022; Jan. 18, 2022; filed Nov. 17, 2021; entered Nov. 18, 2021). 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
* We deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See Harbison v. Bell, 556
U.S. 180, 183 (2009); United States v. Williams, 56 F.4th 366, 370 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023).
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.