Filed: Oct. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7237 MICHAEL RICHARDS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-00-601-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7237 MICHAEL RICHARDS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-00-601-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7237
MICHAEL RICHARDS, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-00-601-2)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Richards, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Richards, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting his motion to reconsider and denying relief on his
petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001).
We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and Richards’ informal
brief filed in this court. Because Richards failed to challenge on
appeal the district court’s finding that his claims were pro-
cedurally defaulted, he has waived review of that issue on appeal.
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. Richards v. Angelone, No. CA-00-601-2 (E.D. Va. July 25,
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