Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marsey v. Crews, 95-8582 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-8582 Visitors: 38
Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8582 ELLIS HARVEY MARSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JEB S. CREWS, Unit Supervisor, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-518-5-HC-F) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished pe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8582 ELLIS HARVEY MARSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JEB S. CREWS, Unit Supervisor, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-518-5-HC-F) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellis Harvey Marsey, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 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. 1214. 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that such a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Marsey v. Crews, No. CA-95-518-5-HC-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 1995). We further deny Appellant's motions for the appointment of counsel, to be heard as a pro se Appellant, and for relief from violations of rights. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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