Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

STANKO v. CRUZ, 360 Fed.Appx. 725 (8th Cir. 2010)

Rudolph George STANKO, Appellant, v. Warden M. CRUZ, LocalDirector/Warden; Michael K. Nalley, Reg’l Director; Harley Lappin,Director, Appellees., 360 F. App'x 725 (8th Cir. 2010)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2010-01-21
Topic
general

STANKO v. CRUZ, 360 Fed.Appx. 725 (8th Cir. 2010) Rudolph George STANKO, Appellant, v. Warden M. CRUZ, LocalDirector/Warden; Michael K. Nalley, Regional Director; Harley Lappin,Director, Appellees.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STANKO v. CRUZ, 360 Fed.Appx. 725 (8th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STANKO v. CRUZ,360 Fed.Appx. 725(8th Cir. 2010)
Rudolph George STANKO, Appellant, v. Warden M. CRUZ, Local
Director/Warden; Michael K. Nalley, Regional Director; Harley Lappin,
Director, Appellees.
No. 09-1132.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: January 12, 2010.
Filed: January 21, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Rudolph George Stanko, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Tricia Annette Tingle, U.S. Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.
Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Rudolph George Stanko appeals the district court's1denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon de novo review,seeMitchell v. U.S. Parole Comm'n,538 F.3d 948,951(8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we conclude that habeas relief was properly denied. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.See8th Cir. R. 47B.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  2. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. ↩