Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Love v. Thompson, 00-7294 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7294 Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7294 SAMMIE LEE LOVE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE THOMPSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-861-5-BO) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Lee Love, Appellant Pr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7294 SAMMIE LEE LOVE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE THOMPSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-861-5-BO) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Lee Love, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sammie Lee Love 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 Love’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Love v. Thompson, No. CA-99- 861-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 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