Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Allen v. Taylor, 01-7950 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7950 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7950 MICHAEL ALLEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-117-3) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7950 MICHAEL ALLEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge; David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-117-3) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Allen appeals the magistrate judge’s* order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) because the relief sought in the petition, a belated appeal to a three-judge panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals, had been awarded to Allen. 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 district court. See Allen v. Taylor, CA-00-117-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001). 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