Case Name: Willie J. HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina; Gary D. Maynard, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Colie L. Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, RespondentsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-02
Citations: 39 F. App'x 949
Docket Number: No. 02-6872
Parties: Willie J. HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina; Gary D. Maynard, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Colie L. Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, RespondentsAppellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 39
Pages: 949–949

Head Matter:
Willie J. HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina; Gary D. Maynard, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Colie L. Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, RespondentsAppellees.
No. 02-6872.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2002.
Decided Aug. 2, 2002.
Willie J. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Willie J. Harrison appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.CA. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2002). 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. See Harrison v. Condon, No. CA-01-2806-9-25BG (D.S.C. filed May 16, 2002; entered May 20, 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.