Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sullivan v. Johnson, 99-7488 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7488 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7488 DANNY LEE SULLIVAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-3367-2-24AJ) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lee Sullivan, Appell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7488 DANNY LEE SULLIVAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-3367-2-24AJ) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lee Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Danny Lee Sullivan 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sulli- van’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sullivan v. Johnson, No. CA-98-3367-2-24AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 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. AFFIRMED 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