Case Name: Charles Ray CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Colie Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charlie 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: 2001-09-13
Citations: 18 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 01-6884
Parties: Charles Ray CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Colie Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charlie Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 187–187

Head Matter:
Charles Ray CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Colie Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Charlie Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-6884.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 6, 2001.
Decided Sept. 13, 2001.
Charles Ray Carter, pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, S. Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Ray Carter seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). 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 on the reasoning of the district court. Carter v. South Carolina, No. CA-00-2179-6-20AK (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2001). We deny the motion for appointment of and 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.