UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6652 SYLVESTER EMERSON WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1900-6-3-AK, CA-95-38-6-3-AK, CA-95-40-6-3-AK) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Emerson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sylvester Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. 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 certif- icate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability may be required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal of No. 6:94-1900-3AK on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. South Carolina, No. 6:94-1900-3AK(L) (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 1995). We affirm as modified the judgments in Nos. 6:95-38-3AK and 6:95-40-3AK. We modify the judgments dismiss- ing the § 1983 actions to dismissals without prejudice because Williams filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) before judgment and before the defendants filed a responsive pleading. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART: AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART 2