Court Opinion

ID: 997818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:02:12.345285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:12.664248
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-7231

ANDREW DAVID OWENS,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY    GENERAL;   STATE   OF
NORTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-97-1101-1)

Submitted:   January 21, 1999             Decided:   February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew David Owens, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Andrew David Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

1994 & Supp. 1998).   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 Owens v. North Carolina Attorney Gen., No.

CA-97-1101-1 (M.D.N.C. July 28, 1998).*     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 judgment is marked as “filed”
on July 27, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 28, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the judgment 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