Case Name: Albert LEGARE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; State of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-24
Citations: 11 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 00-7431
Parties: Albert LEGARE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; State of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 142–142

Head Matter:
Albert LEGARE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; State of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 00-7431.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2001.
Decided April 24, 2001.
Harry Leslie Devoe, Jr., New Zion, SC, for appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Albert Legare 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Legare v. Rushton, No. CA-99-289-2-24-AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 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.
Although the district court's order did not expressly address the magistrate judge's order denying Legare's motion for leave to proceed with discovery, we have reviewed the record and are convinced that the magistrate judge acted well within his discretion in denying the motion.