Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Neysmith v. Angelone, 97-6518 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6518 Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 22, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6518 GLADSTONE NEYSMITH, a/k/a Fitzroy G. Blake, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-706) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6518 GLADSTONE NEYSMITH, a/k/a Fitzroy G. Blake, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-706) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gladstone Neysmith, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley Ann Whittle, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the magistrate judge. Neysmith v. Angelone, No. CA-96-706 (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 1997). 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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