Case ID: f-appx_46/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martha A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 5, 2002.
    Decided Sept. 11, 2002.
    Arthur L. Stephenson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Arthur L. Stephenson seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Stephenson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Stephenson v. Wannamaker, No. CA-00-1266-3-25BC (D.S.C. July 8, 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.