Case Name: Thelbert Nolan "Pete" FUTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. 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: 2002-12-31
Citations: 53 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 02-7047
Parties: Thelbert Nolan “Pete” FUTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 690–690

Head Matter:
Thelbert Nolan “Pete” FUTRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2002.
Decided Dec. 31, 2002.
Thelbert Nolan Futrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Court.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thelbert Nolan "Pete" Futrell 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. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Futrell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Futrell v. Catoe, No. CA-00-1082-M-23 (D.S.C. June 21, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). Futrell's motion for oral argument is denied because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.