Filed: Jul. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6872 MARTY JOE MCJUNKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SID HARKLEROAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-79) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marty Joe Mc
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6872 MARTY JOE MCJUNKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SID HARKLEROAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-79) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marty Joe McJ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6872
MARTY JOE MCJUNKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SID HARKLEROAD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-02-79)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marty Joe McJunkins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marty McJunkins, a North Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that McJunkins has not made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322 (2003). Accordingly, although we grant McJunkins’s
motion to amend his informal brief, 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