Court Opinion

ID: 1001369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:54:39.971525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:47.206050
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-7663

DENVER WILLIE BLEVINS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; RICK JACKSON,
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-98-383-1)

Submitted:   April 13, 2000                 Decided:   April 20, 2000

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denver Willie Blevins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Denver Willie Blevins 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 dis-

trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-

trate judge and find no reversible error.     Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason-

ing of the district court.    See Blevins v. North Carolina Attorney

General, No. CA-98-383-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 1999).*      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
November 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 15, 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