Filed: Dec. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7404 TYRONE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JENNIFER H. LANGLEY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-419-5-H) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Johnson, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7404 TYRONE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JENNIFER H. LANGLEY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-419-5-H) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Johnson, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7404 TYRONE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JENNIFER H. LANGLEY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-419-5-H) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tyrone Johnson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal an order he believes the district court entered on July 26, 2004, in his federal habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). However, a review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals no order entered on or around that date. Thus, there is no appealable order for us to review. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 -