Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Casey v. Haines, 01-6815 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6815 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6815 THOMAS CASEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correc- tional Center; CECIL H. UNDERWOOD, Governor of West Virginia; SANDRA ILDERTON, Chairperson of the West Virginia Parole Board; QUEWANNCOIL C. STEPHEN, Member; VERNON BARLEY, Member; DOUGH STUMP, Member; GEORGE SIDEROPLIS, Member, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6815 THOMAS CASEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correc- tional Center; CECIL H. UNDERWOOD, Governor of West Virginia; SANDRA ILDERTON, Chairperson of the West Virginia Parole Board; QUEWANNCOIL C. STEPHEN, Member; VERNON BARLEY, Member; DOUGH STUMP, Member; GEORGE SIDEROPLIS, Member, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-00-616-2) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., David Paul Cleek, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Casey v. Haines, No. CA-00-616-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 3, 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