Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Epps v. Baskerville, 96-7781 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7781 Visitors: 26
Filed: Aug. 19, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7781 HUGH R. EPPS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-178) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: August 19, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh R. Epps, Appellant Pro S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7781 HUGH R. EPPS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-178) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: August 19, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh R. Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attor- ney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals 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 magis- trate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Epps v. Baskerville, No. CA-96- 178 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 1996). 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 the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. 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