Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vest v. McDade, 99-7000 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7000 Visitors: 29
Filed: Feb. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7000 KEITH BRENT VEST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN MCDADE; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-273-BO-5-2) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. K
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7000 KEITH BRENT VEST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN MCDADE; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-273-BO-5-2) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Brent Vest, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Fitzgerald Wyatt, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS, WHEELER & HAUSER, High Point, North Carolina; George Bullock Currin, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CARO- LINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keith Brent Vest seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Vest v. McDade, No. CA-97-273-BO-5-2 (E.D.N.C. June 23, 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