Brunt v. Taylor

Fourth Circuit

Brunt v. Taylor

24 F. App'x 213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

Docket01-7434

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 F. App'x 213 (Brunt v. Taylor) 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

Brunt v. Taylor, 24 F. App'x 213 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Brunt appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Brunt v. Taylor, No. CA-00-730 (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *214 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Brunt appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Brunt v. Taylor, No. CA-00-730 (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *214 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. App'x 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunt-v-taylor-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack