Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Legare v. Rushton, 00-7431 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7431 Visitors: 31
Filed: Apr. 24, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7431 ALBERT LEGARE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CARO- LINA; CHARLES MOLONY 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 Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-289-2-24-AJ) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7431 ALBERT LEGARE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; STATE OF SOUTH CARO- LINA; CHARLES MOLONY 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 Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-289-2-24-AJ) Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry Leslie Devoe, Jr., New Zion, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Albert Legare seeks to appeal the district court’s order de- nying 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* Legare v. Rushton, No. CA- 99-289-2-24-AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 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 * Although the district court’s order did not expressly ad- dress the magistrate judge’s order denying Legare’s motion for leave to proceed with discovery, we have reviewed the record and are convinced that the magistrate judge acted well within his discretion in denying the motion. 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