Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McDaniel v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    James Mark McDaniel filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, which was denied by the district court. 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 to deny relief. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied McDaniel's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that McDaniel was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6156

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    James Mark McDaniel filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, which was denied by the district court. 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 to deny relief. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied McDaniel's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that McDaniel was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

    Copyright:

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

    McDaniel v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    James Mark McDaniel filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, which was denied by the district court. 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 to deny relief. As such, the Fourth Circuit denied McDaniel's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that McDaniel was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-6156

    JAMES MARK MCDANIEL,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DOUG CATOE, Commissioner of the South Carolina
    Department of Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON,
    Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution;
    CHARLES MOLONY 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 Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CA-99-2391)

    Submitted:

    March 23, 2000

    Decided:

    March 31, 2000

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    James Mark McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, 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:
    James Mark McDaniel appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1999).

    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.
    13, 1999).

    See McDaniel v. Catoe, No. CA-99-2391 (D.S.C. Dec.


    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