Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harris v. NC Attorney General, 96-6654 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6654 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6654 JAMES MCCOY HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOM C. MARTIN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-95-759-1) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6654 JAMES MCCOY HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOM C. MARTIN, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magis- trate Judge. (CA-95-759-1) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James McCoy Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magis- trate judge. Harris v. North Carolina Attorney General, No. CA-95- 759-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 1996). We also deny Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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