Filed: May 26, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7825 MICHAEL CEDRIC NALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-18-2) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7825 MICHAEL CEDRIC NALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-18-2) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7825 MICHAEL CEDRIC NALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-18-2) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Cedric Nall, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Nall v. Angelone, No. CA-97-18-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 1997). We dis- pense 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