Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pilkington v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Raymond Pilkington appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its September 17, 1998 decision. The appeals court determined that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7502

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raymond Pilkington appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its September 17, 1998 decision. The appeals court determined that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Pilkington v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond Pilkington appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its September 17, 1998 decision. The appeals court determined that oral arguments were not necessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 98-7502

    RAYMOND PILKINGTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
    (CA-98-335)

    Submitted:

    December 8, 1998

    Decided:

    December 29, 1998

    Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Raymond Pilkington, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond Pilkington seeks to appeal the district courts 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

    courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate


    judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
    and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
    Pilkington v. Angelone, No. CA-98-335 (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1998).
    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

    You might also like