Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wynn v. Angelone, 98-7702 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7702 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7702 OSBORNE WYNN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-972-3) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7702 OSBORNE WYNN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-972-3) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Osborne Wynn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Wynn appeals the magistrate judge’s order* denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Wynn v. Angelone, No. CA-97-972-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 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