Gaster v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Fourth Circuit

Gaster v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

67 F. App'x 821

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 25, 2003·No. 03-6544·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frank M. Gaster, who was civilly committed under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. * We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, 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.

*

Although Gaster originally filed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, because he challenged the constitutionality of a state civil commitment, the magistrate judge properly characterized it as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frank M. Gaster, who was civilly committed under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. * We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaster has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, 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.

*

Although Gaster originally filed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, because he challenged the constitutionality of a state civil commitment, the magistrate judge properly characterized it as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Gaster v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 67 F. App'x 821 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

67 F. App'x 821 (Gaster v. South Carolina Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related