Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carter v. SC Dept Corr, 00-6785 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6785 Visitors: 51
Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6785 WILLIE LEE CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1627) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEME
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6785 WILLIE LEE CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1627) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Lee Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Willie Lee Carter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. See Carter v. Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-99-1627 (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 2000). 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 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