Filed: Aug. 30, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6718 RUSSELL LEON DOBEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1661-6) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6718 RUSSELL LEON DOBEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1661-6) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6718 RUSSELL LEON DOBEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1661-6) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Leon Dobey, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Russell Leon Dobey 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 district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Dobey v. Moore, No. CA-98-1661-6 (D.S.C. May 9, 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