U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Rochester v. SC Dept Corr

Rochester v. SC Dept Corr
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 17, 1998

Rochester v. SC Dept Corr

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6613

JULIAN E. ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

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 Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-146-2-21AJ)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian E. Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Rochester v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-98-146-2- 21AJ (D.S.C. Apr. 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motions for preparation of a transcript at government expense and for correction of facts in PLRA are denied.

DISMISSED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.