Filed: Jul. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6772 FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; CHARLES CREECY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-365-4) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6772 FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; CHARLES CREECY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-365-4) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6772 FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; CHARLES CREECY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-365-4) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se. Mark John Pletzke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wambach v. Attorney General, No. CA-97-365-4 (M.D.N.C. May 13, 1998). 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