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)
01-7680•George R. Wertz, Jr v. MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections
01-7680Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 8, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7680
GEORGE R. WERTZ, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of 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. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-98-1577-4-22-BF)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 8, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George R. Wertz, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
George R. Wertz, Jr., appeals the district court’s order deny-
ing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommen-
dation 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. Wertz v. Moore, No.
CA-98-1577-4-22-BF (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2001). 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.