Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ross v. State of SC, 03-7263 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7263 Visitors: 60
Filed: Dec. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7263 NORRIS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLESTON COUNTY; CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 03-7277 NORRIS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA, State; CHARLESTON COUNTY; CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7263 NORRIS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLESTON COUNTY; CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 03-7277 NORRIS ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA, State; CHARLESTON COUNTY; CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-2169-2, CA-03-2205-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norris Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Norris Ross, a South Carolina pre-trial detainee, appeals from the district court’s orders accepting the reports and recommendations of a magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ross v. South Carolina, Nos. CA-03-2169-2; CA-03-2205-2-18AJ (D.S.C. filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered Aug. 7, 2003; Aug. 13, 2003). 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 AFFIRMED 3
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