Azeez v. Kirby

Fourth Circuit

Azeez v. Kirby

34 F. App'x 138

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 2002

Docket00-7543

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 F. App'x 138 (Azeez v. Kirby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Azeez v. Kirby, 34 F. App'x 138 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jamal A. Azeez seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001), and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the district court’s order denying post judgment relief, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * See Azeez v. Kirby, No. CA-98-523-5 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2000; Dec. 21, 2001). We deny Azeez’s motions for appointment of counsel and his motions to remand and to file a formal brief. 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.

*

We note that the district court should have considered the post judgment motion as under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), rather than Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), because the motion was executed within ten days of the entry of judgment. See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir.1978). We find, however, that relief was properly denied. See Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jamal A. Azeez seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001), and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the district court’s order denying post judgment relief, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * See Azeez v. Kirby, No. CA-98-523-5 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2000; Dec. 21, 2001). We deny Azeez’s motions for appointment of counsel and his motions to remand and to file a formal brief. 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.

*

We note that the district court should have considered the post judgment motion as under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), rather than Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), because the motion was executed within ten days of the entry of judgment. See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir.1978). We find, however, that relief was properly denied. See Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. App'x 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azeez-v-kirby-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack