Court Opinion

ID: 1004087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:36:20.997092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:32.390104
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 01-6230

MICHAEL GRADY LOCKLEAR,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DANIEL L. STIENEKE; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-98-17-1-MU)

Submitted:   April 12, 2001                 Decided:   April 19, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Grady Locklear, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Michael Grady Locklear 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 and find no reversible error.   According-

ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court.   Locklear v. Stieneke, No.

CA-98-17-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2001).     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

                                 2