Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ross v. Angelone, 01-6738 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6738 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6738 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-349-2) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6738 DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-349-2) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Eugene Ross, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dennis Eugene Ross seeks to appeal 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 magistrate judge’s opinion* and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Ross v. Angelone, No. CA-00- 349-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 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 * The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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