Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bells v. Moore, 99-7276 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7276 Visitors: 45
Filed: Feb. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7276 JAMES BELLS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina De- partment of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-2589-6-12-AK) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 7, 2000 Befor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7276 JAMES BELLS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina De- partment of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-2589-6-12-AK) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 7, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Bells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Bells seeks to appeal the district court’s order grant- ing summary judgment to the Respondents on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bells v. Moore, No. CA-98-2589-6-12-AK (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 1999). 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. 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