Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Crooks v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Thomas D. Crooks, Jr. regarding the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Crooks' petition. The Fourth Circuit also found no error in the denial of Crooks' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-08-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6805

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Thomas D. Crooks, Jr. regarding the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Crooks' petition. The Fourth Circuit also found no error in the denial of Crooks' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Crooks v. Moore, 4th Cir. (1997)

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Thomas D. Crooks, Jr. regarding the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Crooks' petition. The Fourth Circuit also found no error in the denial of Crooks' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court.

    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. 97-6805

    THOMAS D. CROOKS, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL MOORE, Director; WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; 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 Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-97-888-2-17AJ)
    Submitted:

    August 14, 1997

    Decided:

    August 25, 1997

    Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas D. Crooks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1997) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have
    reviewed the record and the district court's 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. Crooks v.
    Moore, No. CA-97-888-2-17AJ (D.S.C. May 6 & 19, 1997). 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