Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Snipes v. Beck, 02-6877 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6877 Visitors: 26
Filed: Dec. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6877 STEVEN EDWARD SNIPES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-983-1) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6877 STEVEN EDWARD SNIPES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-983-1) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Edward Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven Edward Snipes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Snipes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Snipes v. Beck, No. CA-01-983-1 (M.D.N.C. filed May 13, 2002; entered May 14, 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