Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Walker v. Angelone, 99-6658 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6658 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6658 ROBERT M. WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia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. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-955-2) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 99-6658



ROBERT M. WALKER,

                                            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. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-98-955-2)


Submitted:   July 8, 1999                   Decided:   July 15, 1999


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert M. Walker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Robert Walker appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999).1   We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-

soning of the magistrate judge. See Walker v. Angelone, No. CA-98-

955-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 1999).2    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




     1
      Both parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (1994).
     2
       Although the order from which Walker appeals was filed on
April 29, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet
on April 30, 1999. April 30, 1999, is therefore the effective date
of the district court’s decision.     See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 
806 F.2d 1232
, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).


                                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