Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Goins v. Attorney General NC, 98-6779 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6779 Visitors: 40
Filed: Oct. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6779 GEORGE GOINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; RICK JACKSON; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-97-1119) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAL
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6779 GEORGE GOINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; RICK JACKSON; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-97-1119) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Goins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge’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 magistrate judge’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certifi- cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Goins v. Attorney General of North Carolina, No. CA-97-1119 (M.D.N.C. May 18, 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 * 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