Henson v. Angelone

Fourth Circuit

Henson v. Angelone

55 F. App'x 213

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 5, 2003·No. 02-7673·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Henson, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting his motion to supplement the record in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition but denying further relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Henson v. Angelone, No. CA-01-59 (E.D.Va. Oct. 18, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

George Henson, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting his motion to supplement the record in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition but denying further relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Henson v. Angelone, No. CA-01-59 (E.D.Va. Oct. 18, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED.

Henson v. Angelone, 55 F. App'x 213 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

55 F. App'x 213 (Henson v. Angelone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related