Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cain v. Angelone, 98-6646 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6646 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jul. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6646 ROBERT LEWIS CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-317) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6646 ROBERT LEWIS CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-317) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Cain, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 magistrate judge’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 magistrate judge’s memorandum and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Cain v. Angelone, No. CA-97-317 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion for assignment of counsel. 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (1994). 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