Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tolbert v. Deeds, 97-6122 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6122 Visitors: 29
Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6122 JAMES DALLAS TOLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-6774 JAMES DALLAS TOLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-116-R) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6122 JAMES DALLAS TOLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-6774 JAMES DALLAS TOLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-116-R) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Dallas Tolbert, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: James Dallas Tolbert seeks to appeal, in No. 97-6122, the dis- trict court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Tolbert v. Deeds, No. CA-96-116-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 23, 1996). Turning to Tolbert's appeal in No. 97-6774, we note that this is an appeal from a post-judgment motion for the provision of records and transcripts to aid in preparation of the appeal in No. 97-6122. Because Tolbert appeals directly from the magistrate judge's order, we find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal as well.* 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. DISMISSED * Even if we were to construe Tolbert's notice of appeal as a motion for production filed in this Court, we note that the record on appeal transmitted to this court appears to contain all the materials encompassed by Tolbert's request. 3
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