Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Watts v. Metzger, 97-7432 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7432 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jan. 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7432 JAMES EDMOND WATTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-946-R) Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7432 JAMES EDMOND WATTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-946-R) Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Watts v. Metzger, No. CA-96-946-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 23, 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