Pierce v. Frederick
This text of Pierce v. Frederick (Pierce v. Frederick) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6506
LARRY P. PIERCE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DODGE FREDERICK, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-2004-0-23-BD)
Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry P. Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Larry P. Pierce seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Pierce v. Frederick, No. CA-01-2004-0-23-BD
(D.S.C. Feb. 20, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pierce v. Frederick, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-frederick-ca4-2002.