Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Walker v. Sutton, 02-6229 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6229 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6229 SAMUEL ALANDO WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARNEST R. SUTTON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-277-5-FO) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Alando Walker, Appella
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6229 SAMUEL ALANDO WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARNEST R. SUTTON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-277-5-FO) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Alando Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Alando Walker 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 concluding that Walker’s claims that the State withheld evidence of a psychiatric evaluation and destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence were procedurally barred and his remaining claims without merit. See Walker v. Sutton, No. CA-01-277-5-FO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2002). 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