Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Groat v. Coleman, 03-6399 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6399 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6399 RICHARD LEON GROAT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Warden Mount Olive Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-7-1) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6399



RICHARD LEON GROAT,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Warden Mount Olive
Correctional Center,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-7-1)


Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 17, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard Leon Groat, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Richard Leon Groat 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

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Groat has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See Miller v. Cockrell, 
123 S. Ct. 1029
, 1040 (2003). 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