Filed: Mar. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7849 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE CURRIE, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-796-5-BO) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7849 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE CURRIE, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-796-5-BO) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7849 CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE CURRIE, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-796-5-BO) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Cornelius Tucker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West Supp. 2001), pursuant to a valid pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Tucker v. Currie, No. CA-01-796-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 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
