Wilson v. Moore

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wilson v. Moore. Read the opinion of the Court — 178 F.3d 266
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 9, 1998·No. 97-7239·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7239

RONALD M. WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-3464-5-18AJ)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald M. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). 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 deny a certificate of ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Wilson v. Moore, No. CA-96-3464-5-18AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 1997). 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

Wilson v. Moore, (4th Cir. 1998).

Wilson v. Moore (Wilson v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related