Court Opinion

ID: 1000887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:47:23.686721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:49.715241
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-7430

ERNEST LEE JUDGE,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

MICHAEL MOORE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-2578-06BC)

Submitted:   February 10, 2000          Decided:     February 14, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Lee Judge, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Ernest Lee Judge seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999).   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 certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.     See Judge v. Moore, No. CA-98-2578-06BC

(D.S.C. Sept. 23, 1999).*   We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
September 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 23, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as
the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2