Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Reynolds v. Dorsey, 98-6233 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6233 Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6233 ROBERT S. REYNOLDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHILIP V. DORSEY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-633) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Mic
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6233 ROBERT S. REYNOLDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHILIP V. DORSEY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-633) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert S. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert S. Reynolds seeks to appeal 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 opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Reynolds v. Dorsey, No. CA-97-633 (E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 1998). We deny Reynolds’ motion for 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 * Both parties consented to the jurisdiction of the 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