Filed: Feb. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7481 JAMES ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; MICHAEL MOORE, Direc- tor of South Carolina Department of Correc- tions; CHARLES C. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3185-2-11) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Befor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7481 JAMES ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; MICHAEL MOORE, Direc- tor of South Carolina Department of Correc- tions; CHARLES C. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3185-2-11) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7481 JAMES ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; MICHAEL MOORE, Direc- tor of South Carolina Department of Correc- tions; CHARLES C. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3185-2-11) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Robinson 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 district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Ward, No. CA-97-3185-2-11 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1998). 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