Court Opinion

ID: 1001844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:01:54.473051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:06.473635
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6432

CARLTON L. STEPHENSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-705-2)

Submitted:   June 15, 2000                 Decided:   June 23, 2000

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton L. Stephenson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Carlton L. Stephenson 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 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 Stephenson v. Angelone, No. CA-99-

705-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 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
March 10, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 13, 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. Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2