Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Chronister v. Moore, 99-7424 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7424 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7424 LYNN JEFFREY CHRONISTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3372-4-17BF) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7424 LYNN JEFFREY CHRONISTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3372-4-17BF) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynn Jeffrey Chronister, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lynn Jeffrey Chronister seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), and denying his motion for recon- sideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chronister’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Chronister v. Moore, No. CA- 98-3372-4-17BF (D.S.C. Sept. 23 & Oct. 15, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer