Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moore v. NC Attorney General, 00-6856 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6856 Visitors: 36
Filed: Aug. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6856 CHRISTOPHER DALE MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOSEPH LEE HAMILTON, JR., Acting Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-802-1) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6856 CHRISTOPHER DALE MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOSEPH LEE HAMILTON, JR., Acting Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-802-1) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Dale Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appleton Reeves, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Dale Moore seeks to appeal 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 dis- trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge 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 Moore v. North Carolina Attorney Gen., No. CA-99-802-1 (M.D.N.C. June 5, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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