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)
01-8064•David Terry Kidd, Jr v. RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
01-8064Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 25, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8064
DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-210-2)
Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Terry Kidd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
David Terry Kidd, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders:
(1) denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
(West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and entering judgment in favor of the
Respondent; and (2) denying various post-judgment motions for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s
opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and
the order denying the post-judgment motions, and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
Kidd v. Angelone, No. CA-01-210-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2001; Jan. 2,
2002). We deny Kidd’s motion to authorize preparation of
transcripts at the Government’s expense. 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.