Filed: Oct. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6904 DONNIE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correc- tional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-20-2) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6904 DONNIE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correc- tional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-20-2) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6904 DONNIE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correc- tional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-20-2) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donnie Moore appeals 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Haines, No. CA-99-20-2 (N.D.W. Va. May 14, 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. AFFIRMED * The district court granted Moore’s request for a certificate of appealability. 2
