Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6786 ALARIC WAYNE HUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-2848-7-23BG) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6786 ALARIC WAYNE HUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-2848-7-23BG) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6786
ALARIC WAYNE HUNT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-00-2848-7-23BG)
Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alaric Wayne Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alaric Wayne Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on Hunt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We have
reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the
magistrate judge’s report, and we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Hunt v. Rushton, No. CA-00-2848-7-23BG (D.S.C.
Mar. 28, 2002). In addition, we note that certain issues raised in
Hunt’s informal brief on appeal were waived by his failure to raise
them in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report. See Wright
v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 844-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Orpiano
v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (failure to file
specific objections to particular conclusions in magistrate judge’s
report, after being warned of consequences, waives further review).
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.
AFFIRMED
2