The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-6585•Michael S. Parker v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director of
00-6585Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 8, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6585
MICHAEL S. PARKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director of,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-99-875-3)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael S. Parker seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. §
2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). * We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Parker v. Director
of Department of Corrections, No. CA-99-875-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27 &
Apr. 25, 2000). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.