Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7051 EPHRAIN RELIFORD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-142-3-17BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7051 EPHRAIN RELIFORD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-142-3-17BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7051 EPHRAIN RELIFORD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-142-3-17BC) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ephrain Reliford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ephrain Reliford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and denying his motion for recon- sideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions 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. Reliford v. Moore, No. CA-98-142-3-17BC (D.S.C. June 5 & July 9, 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