Filed: Apr. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6155 JAMES LAMONT MADISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-868) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lamont Madison, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6155 JAMES LAMONT MADISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-868) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lamont Madison, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6155 JAMES LAMONT MADISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. E. WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-868) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lamont Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Graff Decker, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Lamont Madison 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 magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap- peal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Madison v. Wright, No. CA-99-868 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2