Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brooks v. Miro, 02-6431 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6431 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 07, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6431 TONY BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden, SCDC-ACI; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-2868-2-22) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6431 TONY BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden, SCDC-ACI; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-2868-2-22) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony Brooks appeals 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 Brooks v. Miro, No. CA-01-2868-2-22 (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 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