Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nicholson v. Rushton, 02-7530 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7530 Visitors: 50
Filed: Feb. 26, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7530 WILLIAM JACKSON NICHOLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-01-3318-9-19BG) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7530 WILLIAM JACKSON NICHOLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-01-3318-9-19BG) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Jackson Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Jackson Nicholson 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 for the reasons stated by the district court that Nicholson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Nicholson v. Rushton, No. CA-01-3318-9-19BG (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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