Filed: Apr. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7774 CEDRIC DION FUNDERBURK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-263-1) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ce
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7774 CEDRIC DION FUNDERBURK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-263-1) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ced..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7774 CEDRIC DION FUNDERBURK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-263-1) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Dion Funderburk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Cedric Funderburk appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing as untimely 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Funderburk v. Jackson, No. CA-00-263-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2