Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gilchrist v. Anthony, 01-6245 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6245 Visitors: 68
Filed: Apr. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6245 JIMMY G. GILCHRIST, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus CALVIN ANTHONY, Warden, Lee Correctional In- stitution; CHARLES M. 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 Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-1811-6) Submitted: April 6, 2001 Decided: April 26, 2001 Before WILKINS and K
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6245 JIMMY G. GILCHRIST, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus CALVIN ANTHONY, Warden, Lee Correctional In- stitution; CHARLES M. 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 Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-1811-6) Submitted: April 6, 2001 Decided: April 26, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., appeals 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 certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gilchrist v. Anthony, No CA-00-1811-6 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 25, 2001; entered Jan. 31, 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 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