Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Henry v. Harrison, 98-6986 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6986 Visitors: 27
Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Opinion on Rehearing UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6986 LEVERN HENRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICKIE HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correction- al Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-892-0-17-BD) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March
More
Opinion on Rehearing UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6986 LEVERN HENRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICKIE HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correction- al Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-892-0-17-BD) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levern Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Levern Henry appeals from the district court’s orders dis- missing for failure to exhaust state remedies, his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason- ing of the district court. See Henry v. Harrison, No. CA-98-892-0- 17-BD (D.S.C. May 18, 1998; June 1 & 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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