Jenkins v. Coleman

Fourth Circuit

Jenkins v. Coleman

52 F. App'x 214

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2002

DocketNo. 02-6965

StatusPublished

This text of 52 F. App'x 214 (Jenkins v. Coleman) 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

Jenkins v. Coleman, 52 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Roger Lee Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000); he also challenges the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Jenkins has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Jenkins v. Painter, No. CA-01-507-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 14, 2002; July 15, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Jenkins’ motion for 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Roger Lee Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000); he also challenges the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Jenkins has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Jenkins v. Painter, No. CA-01-507-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 14, 2002; July 15, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Jenkins’ motion for 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F. App'x 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-coleman-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack