Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dennis v. SC Dept of Correc, 01-6183 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6183 Visitors: 55
Filed: Apr. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6183 MICHAEL LEE DENNIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3676-3-20BC) Submitted: April 10, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6183 MICHAEL LEE DENNIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3676-3-20BC) Submitted: April 10, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lee Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Lee Dennis appeals 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Dennis v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-00-3676-3-20BC (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2001). 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