Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Baysden v. Attorney General NC, 98-7189 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7189 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7189 DENNIS BAYSDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; MACK JARVIS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-574-3) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7189 DENNIS BAYSDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; MACK JARVIS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Dis- trict Judge. (CA-97-574-3) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Baysden, Appellant Pro Se. Kendrick C. Fentress, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dennis Baysden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and deny relief on Baysden’s petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error in the court’s orders. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Baysden v. Attorney General of North Carolina, No. CA-97-574-3 (M.D.N.C. July 1, 1998; Dec. 10, 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
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