Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Page v. Taylor, 01-6819 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6819 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6819 ANTHONY BERNARD PAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden; SAM MOORE, Unit Manager, Y Building; B. T. MOHEAD, Hearings Officer; W. RIVERS, Lieutenant, Sussex I State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PAIR, Guard, Sussex I State Prison, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-377-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6819 ANTHONY BERNARD PAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN TAYLOR, Warden; SAM MOORE, Unit Manager, Y Building; B. T. MOHEAD, Hearings Officer; W. RIVERS, Lieutenant, Sussex I State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PAIR, Guard, Sussex I State Prison, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-377-AM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Bernard Page, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Bernard Page appeals the district court’s order deny- ing 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 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Page v. Taylor, No. CA-00-377-AM (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 11, 2001; entered Apr. 13, 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