Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Massey v. State of Maryland, 01-8087 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-8087 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8087 TERRANCE MASSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; RICHARD B. ROSENBLATT, Director of Patuxent Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01- 3086-MJG) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8087 TERRANCE MASSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; RICHARD B. ROSENBLATT, Director of Patuxent Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01- 3086-MJG) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terrance Massey seeks to appeal the district court’s order and order on reconsideration denying relief on his second petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Massey never received authorization to file a second § 2254 petition, and consequently, the district court lacked authority to act on Massey’s second petition. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Massey v. Maryland, No. CA-01-3086-MJG (D. Md. filed Nov. 7, 2001, entered Nov. 8, 2001; filed Nov. 30, 2001, entered Dec. 3, 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 in 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