Filed: Mar. 11, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7297 MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Rev., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-968) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7297 MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Rev., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-968) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLI..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7297 MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Rev., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-968) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Parker v. Angelone, No. CA-94-968 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 1995). 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. AFFIRMED 2