Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hitter v. Weldon, 01-7892 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7892 Visitors: 10
Filed: May 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7892 MICHAEL HITTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-00-3411-4-22BF) Submitted: May 15, 2002 Decided: May 31, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7892 MICHAEL HITTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-00-3411-4-22BF) Submitted: May 15, 2002 Decided: May 31, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melissa Reed Kimbrough, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Hitter 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hitter v. Weldon, No. CA-00- 3411-4-22BF (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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