Filed: Oct. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7434 DAVID S. COUSINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID BOBO; SAMUEL DOTSON; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-28-4) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7434 DAVID S. COUSINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID BOBO; SAMUEL DOTSON; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-28-4) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7434
DAVID S. COUSINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID BOBO; SAMUEL DOTSON; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,
Attorney General of North Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District
Judge. (CA-97-28-4)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David S. Cousins appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion holding that Cousins had failed to state a claim and find
no reversible error. See Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst.
v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539,
571-72 (1974); Pell v. Procunier,
417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974); Leonard
v. Nix,
55 F.3d 370, 375 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-
soning of the district court. Cousins v. Bobo, No. CA-97-28-4
(W.D.N.C. Sept. 19, 1997). 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
2