Filed: May 21, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6145 CARLTON DALE WALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-807) Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Dale Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Cla
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6145 CARLTON DALE WALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-807) Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Dale Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Clar..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6145 CARLTON DALE WALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-807) Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Dale Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carlton Dale Wall seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 magis- trate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Wall v. Walker, No. CA- 00-807 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2001). 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2