Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Anderson v. Moore, 00-6017 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6017 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 27, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6017 JOHN R. ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-2332-4-17BF) Submitted: June 20, 2000 Decided: July 27, 2000 Befo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6017 JOHN R. ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-2332-4-17BF) Submitted: June 20, 2000 Decided: July 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John R. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John R. Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Moore, No. CA-98-2332-4- 17BF (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 1999). We note that, as to Anderson’s claim that counsel was ineffective in the prior federal habeas pro- ceeding, such a claim is precluded by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(i) (West Supp. 2000). 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