Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hinson v. Catoe, 00-6595 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6595 Visitors: 31
Filed: Jul. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6595 THOMAS HINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DOUG CATOE, Director, South Carolina Depart- ment of Corrections; CHARLES CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-356-9-8RB) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6595 THOMAS HINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DOUG CATOE, Director, South Carolina Depart- ment of Corrections; CHARLES CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-356-9-8RB) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Hinson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Thomas Hinson appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief 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 on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See Hinson v. Catoe, No. CA-99-356-9-8RB (D.S.C. Apr. 11, 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