Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Raffaldt v. Maynard, 02-7562 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7562 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7562 EUGENE RAFFALDT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-3191-2-23AJ) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7562 EUGENE RAFFALDT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-3191-2-23AJ) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Raffaldt, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Eugene Raffaldt seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Raffaldt has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Raffaldt v. Maynard, No. CA-01-3191-2-23AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 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