Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bennett v. Dept of Corrections, 96-6257 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6257 Visitors: 34
Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6257 CHARLES ARTHUR BENNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; W. K. JONES, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-226-5-BO) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6257 CHARLES ARTHUR BENNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; W. K. JONES, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-226-5-BO) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Arthur Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bennett v. Department of Corrections, No. CA-95-226-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 1995). We deny Appellant's motions for default judgment and for writ of habeas corpus, for court order, and for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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