Court Opinion

ID: 1002711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:14:56.895706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:39.911545
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6722

CLIVE HURST, a/k/a Clyde Hurst,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH         CAROLINA;    TONY
STAMEY, Superintendent,

                                                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-259-1)

Submitted:   September 29, 2000               Decided:   October 11, 2000

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Phillip Griffin, Jr., NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.         Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Clive Hurst seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000).   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, deny Hurst’s motion for appointment of counsel, and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.      See

Hurst v. Attorney General, No. CA-99-259-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 27,

2000).*   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

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
April 26, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 27, 2000. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the judgment or 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