Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Josey v. Rushton, 01-6670 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6670 Visitors: 26
Filed: Oct. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6670 RICHARD H. JOSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correc- tional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attor- ney General of the State of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-547-7) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6670 RICHARD H. JOSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correc- tional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attor- ney General of the State of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-547-7) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard H. Josey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, S. Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard H. Josey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). 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 certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Josey v. Rushton, No. CA-00-547-7 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 15, 2001; entered Mar. 16, 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