Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Parks v. Garraghty, 99-7313 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7313 Visitors: 35
Filed: Mar. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7313 ELISHER RAY PARKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greenville Correc- tional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-1847-AM) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Di
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7313



ELISHER RAY PARKS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greenville Correc-
tional Center,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-1847-AM)


Submitted:   February 24, 2000             Decided:   March 1, 2000


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elisher Ray Parks, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Elisher Ray Parks 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 opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-

soning of the district court.   See Parks v. Garraghty, No. CA-98-

1847-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 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




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
August 18, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 20, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the
effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 
806 F.2d 1232
, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).


                                 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