Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bryson v. Wannamaker, 01-6800 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6800 Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6800 NORMAN A. BRYSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; CHARLES M.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 Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-2831-2-19) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6800 NORMAN A. BRYSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; CHARLES M.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 Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-2831-2-19) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman A. Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTOR- NEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Norman A. Bryson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and denying his motion to alter or amend. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. This was Bryson’s second § 2254 petition, and he did not obtain permission from this Court to file the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Further, the record belies Bryson’s claim that his first petition was not decided on the merits. Finally, Bryson cannot now challenge the decision in the prior § 2254 petition. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented 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