U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2001

Anstey v. Painter

Anstey v. Painter
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 9, 2001 · Michael, Motz, King
20 F. App'x 171

Counsel

Samuel R. Anstey, pro se. Leah Perry Macia, Bailey & Glasser, L.L.P., Charleston, WV, for appellee.

Anstey v. Painter

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Samuel R. Anstey seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Anstey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Anstey v. Painter, No. CA-99-120-5 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 16, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *172 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

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