Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cameron v. Garraghty, 02-7713 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7713 Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7713 ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1192-AM) Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Appellan
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7713 ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1192-AM) Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron 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 Cameron has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Cameron v. Garraghty, No. CA-01-1192-AM (E.D. Va., filed Oct. 9, 2002; entered Oct. 10, 2002). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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