Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Norris v. Baskerville, 02-6699 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6699 Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6699 EDWARD HOWARD NORRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-616-AM) Submitted: September 6, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6699 EDWARD HOWARD NORRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-616-AM) Submitted: September 6, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Howard Norris, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Edward Howard Norris seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Norris has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Norris v. Baskerville, No. CA-01-616-AM (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 18, 2002 & entered Apr. 19, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
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