Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Randolph v. Gal, 01-7637 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7637 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7637 CHARLES RANDOLPH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEVEN J. GAL, Warden, FCI Estill, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-642-9-22RB) Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: September 3, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ch
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7637 CHARLES RANDOLPH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEVEN J. GAL, Warden, FCI Estill, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-642-9-22RB) Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: September 3, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Randolph, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Randolph, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002).* We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Randolph v. Gal, No. CA-01-642-9-22RB (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 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 * Although Randolph brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), the district court correctly construed it as Randolph’s second § 2255 motion. 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