Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Garrett v. Painter, 01-6421 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6421 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6421 RUSSELL E. GARRETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correc- tional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-717-2) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Di
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6421 RUSSELL E. GARRETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correc- tional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-717-2) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell E. Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Russell E. Garrett 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 Garrett’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appeal- ability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Garrett v. Painter, No. CA-99-717-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 14, 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