Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Painter, 01-6771 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6771 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 11, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6771 WILLIAM JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Respondent - Appellee, WARDEN, Huttonsville Correctional Center; RECORDS DEPARTMENT, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Parties-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-99-59-3) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEME
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6771 WILLIAM JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Respondent - Appellee, WARDEN, Huttonsville Correctional Center; RECORDS DEPARTMENT, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Parties-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-99-59-3) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. See Jones v. Painter, No. CA-99-59-3 (N.D.W. Va. filed Apr. 5, 2001; entered Apr. 6, 2001). Jones’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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