Springs v. State of SC
Springs v. State of SC
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6775
LACOSTA MONTRELL SPRINGS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 02-7314
LACOSTA MONTRELL SPRINGS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-3854-19-BD) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Derrick K. McFarland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
2 PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Lacosta Montrell Springs seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his
petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000) and then denying a
certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and
conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Springs
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Springs v. South Carolina, No. CA-00-
3854-19-BD (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2002, and June 3, 2002; entered
Mar. 29, 2002, and June 5, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished