Case Name: Norris ROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County; Charleston Police Department; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees; Norris Ross, Petitioner-Appellant, v. South Carolina, State; Charleston County; Charleston Police Department; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-04
Citations: 82 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: Nos. 03-7263, 03-7277
Parties: Norris ROSS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County; Charleston Police Department; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees. Norris Ross, Petitioner—Appellant, v. South Carolina, State; Charleston County; Charleston Police Department; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
Norris ROSS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charleston County; Charleston Police Department; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees. Norris Ross, Petitioner—Appellant, v. South Carolina, State; Charleston County; Charleston Police Department; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Nos. 03-7263, 03-7277.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
Norris Ross, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Norris Ross, a South Carolina pre-trial detainee, appeals from the district court's orders accepting the reports and recommendations of a magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Our review of the record and the district court's opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ross v. South Carolina, Nos. CA-03-2169-2; CA-03-2205-2-18AJ (D.S.C. filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered Aug. 7, 2003; Aug. 13, 2003). 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
AFFIRMED