Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nazelrod v. Hun, 01-6574 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6574 Visitors: 104
Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6574 JOSEPH NAZELROD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NICHOLAS HUN, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-99-49-3) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 01-6574



JOSEPH NAZELROD,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


NICHOLAS HUN, Commissioner of the Department
of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-99-49-3)


Submitted:   August 9, 2001                 Decided:   August 15, 2001


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph Nazelrod, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Joseph Nazelrod 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 a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.   See Nazelrod v. Hun, No. CA-99-49-3 (N.D.W.

Va. Mar. 28, 2001).   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials 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