Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nodine v. Miro, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Richard Claude Nodine's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Nodine's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal, also denying his motion for authorization to file a second application for post-conviction relief in South Carolina courts.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-08-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6952

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Richard Claude Nodine's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Nodine's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal, also denying his motion for authorization to file a second application for post-conviction relief in South Carolina courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Nodine v. Miro, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Richard Claude Nodine's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Nodine's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal, also denying his motion for authorization to file a second application for post-conviction relief in South Carolina courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6952

    RICHARD CLAUDE NODINE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden ACI; D.R. FREDERICK,
    Director of the South Carolina Department of
    Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, South Carolina
    Attorney General,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CA-01-1962-9-23)

    Submitted:

    August 15, 2002

    Decided:

    August 26, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Richard Claude Nodine, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Claude Nodine seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the


    district court. See Nodine v. Miro, No. CR-01-1962-9-23 (D.S.C. May
    24, 2002).

    We also deny Nodines motion for authorization to file

    a second or successive application for post-conviction relief in


    South Carolina courts.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like