Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hubbard v. State of SC, 98-7282 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7282 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7282 BENJAMIN HUBBARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DE- PARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SER- VICES; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-713-6-22AK) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7282 BENJAMIN HUBBARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DE- PARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SER- VICES; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-713-6-22AK) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Benjamin Hubbard appeals 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See Hubbard v. South Carolina, No. CA-98-713-6-22AK (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 1998). We deny the motion to authorize tran- scripts at the Government’s expense and 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
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