Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bell v. Condon, 00-7392 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7392 Visitors: 33
Filed: Feb. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7392 JOHN JAMES BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2663-4-13BF) Submitted: February 6, 2001 Deci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7392 JOHN JAMES BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2663-4-13BF) Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se. George Robert DeLoach, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John James Bell seeks to appeal 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 cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bell v. Condon, No. CA-99-2663-4-13BF (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2000). 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