Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Parker v. Department of Corr, 00-6585 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6585 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 08, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6585 MICHAEL S. PARKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director of, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-875-3) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6585 MICHAEL S. PARKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director of, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-875-3) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael S. Parker seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders 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 opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Parker v. Director of Department of Corrections, No. CA-99-875-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27 & Apr. 25, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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