Case ID: f-appx_46/html/0727-01.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

Larmarko S. ROSCOE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Larmarko S. Roscoe, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 02-6955, 02-7024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 19, 2002.
    Decided Sept. 30, 2002.
    Larmarko S. Roscoe, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and ' TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Larmarko S. Roscoe seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) and the district court’s order denying a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Roscoe has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabilty and dismiss Roscoe’s appeal of each order. See Roscoe v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-01-3168-6-24AK (D.S.C. May 24 & June 19, 2002). 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.