Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McGibboney v. Attorney General NC, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joe Wesley McGibboney's appeal of a district court order that denied relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied McGibboney's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 24, 1998 order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7188

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joe Wesley McGibboney's appeal of a district court order that denied relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied McGibboney's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 24, 1998 order.

    Copyright:

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

    McGibboney v. Attorney General NC, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joe Wesley McGibboney's appeal of a district court order that denied relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court denied McGibboney's requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its July 24, 1998 order.

    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. 98-7188

    JOE WESLEY MCGIBBONEY,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA;
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

    NORTH
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CA-98-88-1)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 1999

    Decided:

    March 8, 1999

    Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Joe Wesley McGibboney, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Joe Wesley McGibboney 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 dis-

    trict courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny

    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court.

    See McGibboney v. Attorney General of North Carolina, No.

    CA-98-88-1 (M.D.N.C. July 24, 1998).

    We dispense with oral argu-

    ment

    contentions

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately

    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like