Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Henderson v. Moats, 99-7268 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7268 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7268 KENNETH L. HENDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOATS; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 635-L) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublish
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7268



KENNETH L. HENDERSON,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD F. MOATS; ATTORNEY     GENERAL   FOR   THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                              Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97-
635-L)


Submitted:   February 24, 2000                Decided:   March 1, 2000


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth L. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Kenneth L. Henderson 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 dis-

trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-

trate judge and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason-

ing of the district court. See Henderson v. Moats, No. CA-97-635-L

(D. Md. Aug. 16, 1999).   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials 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