Johnson v. Garraghty

Fourth Circuit

Johnson v. Garraghty

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 1999

Docket97-6841

StatusUnpublished

This text of Johnson v. Garraghty (Johnson v. Garraghty) 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

Johnson v. Garraghty, (4th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6841

DAVID LEE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID GARRAGHTY; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Attor- ney General of the State of Virginia,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 97-6975

DAVID GARRAGHTY; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Attor- ney General of the State of Virginia,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-504-2) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

David Lee Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s order finding that his petition was untimely filed and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Johnson v. Garraghty, No. CA-97-504-2 (E.D. Va. May 30,

1997* & Dec. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on May 29, 1997, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 30, 1997. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79k(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

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