Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Davis, 97-7367 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7367 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 18, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7367 NATHANIEL HAMPTON JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hamp- ton, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel H. Jones, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden of Lee Correctional In- stitution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-9
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7367 NATHANIEL HAMPTON JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hamp- ton, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel H. Jones, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden of Lee Correctional In- stitution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2299-2-13AJ) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Hampton Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district 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 record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Davis, No. CA-97-2299-2-13AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 3, 1997). 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 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