Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hatfield v. Fox, 02-7684 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7684 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 07, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7684 TENNIS ZEKE HATFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. FOX, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-594-2) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7684 TENNIS ZEKE HATFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM M. FOX, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-594-2) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tennis Zeke Hatfield, Appellant Pro Se. Heather D. Foster, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tennis Zeke Hatfield 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 Hatfield has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Hatfield v. Fox, No. CA-01-594-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 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