Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stephenson v. Wannamaker, 02-7046 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7046 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7046 ARTHUR L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-00-1266-3-25BC) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7046 ARTHUR L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-00-1266-3-25BC) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur L. Stephenson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur L. Stephenson seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Stephenson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Stephenson v. Wannamaker, No. CA-00-1266-3-25BC (D.S.C. July 8, 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