Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Anderson v. Angelone, 02-7168 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7168 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7168 PAMELA J. ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-794-2) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7168 PAMELA J. ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-794-2) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Pamela J. Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Anderson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Anderson v. Angelone, No. CA- 01-794-2 (E.D. Va. filed July 24, 2002; entered July 26, 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