Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shell v. Rushton, 02-6761 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6761
Filed: Sep. 24, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6761 NATHANIEL ALBERT SHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-964-2-20AJ) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6761 NATHANIEL ALBERT SHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-964-2-20AJ) Submitted: September 9, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Albert Shell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Albert Shell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Shell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Shell v. Rushton, No. CA-02-964-2-20AJ (D.S.C. filed Apr. 16, 2002, entered Apr. 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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