Filed: Mar. 08, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7188 JOE WESLEY MCGIBBONEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-88-1) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7188 JOE WESLEY MCGIBBONEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-88-1) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7188
JOE WESLEY MCGIBBONEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-98-88-1)
Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999
Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Wesley McGibboney, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joe Wesley McGibboney seeks to appeal 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 dis-
trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appeal-
ability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See McGibboney v. Attorney General of North Carolina, No.
CA-98-88-1 (M.D.N.C. July 24, 1998). We dispense with oral argu-
ment 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