Court Opinion

ID: 1001781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:00:43.938196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:26.892584
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6413

ROOSEVELT EISON, JR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-99-682-9-24RB)

Submitted:   May 25, 2000                   Decided:   June 6, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roosevelt Eison, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Roosevelt Eison, Jr., 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 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. Eison v. South Carolina, No. CA-99-682-

9-24RB (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 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
February 24, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 29, 2000.      Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that 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