Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cook v. Angelone, 98-6282 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6282 Visitors: 65
Filed: Jul. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6282 KEVIN MICHAEL COOK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-354-2) Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6282 KEVIN MICHAEL COOK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the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 District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-354-2) Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Michael Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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, though we grant Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Angelone, CA-97-354-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 1998). 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