Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gibson v. Harrison, 99-6761 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6761 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6761 WINFRED GIBSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICKIE HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correction- al Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-2453-4-6AK) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6761 WINFRED GIBSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICKIE HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correction- al Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-2453-4-6AK) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winfred Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Winfred Gibson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). 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 Gibson v. Harrison, No. CA-98-2453-4-6AK (D.S.C. May 17, 1999). 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
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