Case ID: f-appx_50/html/0152-01.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

Lacosta Montrell SPRINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Lacosta Montrell Springs, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 02-6775, 02-7314.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
    Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   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.