Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Myers v. Hughes, 02-7052 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7052 Visitors: 35
Filed: Jan. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7052 MARK STEVEN MYERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARCUS HUGHES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-88-HC-BR) Submitted: December 12, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Steven Myers, Appellant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7052 MARK STEVEN MYERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARCUS HUGHES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-88-HC-BR) Submitted: December 12, 2002 Decided: January 3, 2003 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Steven Myers, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mark Steven Myers, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief 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 Myers has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Myers v. Hughes, No. CA-01-88-HC-BR (E.D.N.C. May 20, 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