Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ganzie v. Angelone, 99-7689 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7689 Visitors: 48
Filed: Feb. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7689 MARCUS GANZIE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-1403-2) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7689 MARCUS GANZIE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-98-1403-2) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Ganzie, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marcus Ganzie seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment denying relief 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Ganzie v. Angelone, No. CA-98-1403-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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