Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Joe v. Eagleton, 04-8025 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-8025 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8025 ANTHONY JOE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General, South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-03-1507-2-23) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8025 ANTHONY JOE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General, South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-03-1507-2-23) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Joe, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anthony Joe 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 on the reasoning of the district court that Joe has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Joe v. Eagleton, No. CA-03-1507-2-23 (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2004). 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