Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chronister v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Lynn Jeffrey Chronister. The court had reviewed Chronister's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and the district court's denial of that petition. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny the petition. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Chronister's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-01-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7424

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Lynn Jeffrey Chronister. The court had reviewed Chronister's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and the district court's denial of that petition. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny the petition. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Chronister's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier rulings.

    Copyright:

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

    Chronister v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Lynn Jeffrey Chronister. The court had reviewed Chronister's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and the district court's denial of that petition. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation to deny the petition. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Chronister's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its earlier rulings.

    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. 99-7424

    LYNN JEFFREY CHRONISTER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL W. MOORE, Director, South Carolina
    Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,
    Attorney General of the State of South
    Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-98-3372-4-17BF)

    Submitted:

    January 20, 2000

    Decided:

    January 28, 2000

    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Lynn Jeffrey Chronister, Appellant Pro Se.
    Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia,
    Appellees.

    Donald John Zelenka,


    South Carolina, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lynn Jeffrey Chronister seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
    2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), and denying his motion for reconsideration.

    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 Chronisters motion
    for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
    reasoning of the district court.

    See Chronister v. Moore, No. CA-

    98-3372-4-17BF (D.S.C. Sept. 23 & Oct. 15, 1999). 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