Springs v. South Carolina
This text of 50 F. App'x 152 (Springs v. South Carolina) 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
In these consolidated appeals, Lacosta Montrell Springs seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed [153]*153under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and then denying a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Springs has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Springs v. South Carolina, No. CA-00-3854-19-BD (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2002, and June 3, 2002; entered Mar. 29, 2002, and June 5, 2002). 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 F. App'x 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springs-v-south-carolina-ca4-2002.