Woodley v. Dept of Corrections ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7654
DUKE E. WOODLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-99-156-3)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duke E. Woodley, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Duke E. Woodley appeals the magistrate judge’s order1 denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate
judge’s opinion and find no reversible error.2 Accordingly, we
deny Woodley’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certif-
icate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the magistrate judge. Woodley v. Department of Corrections, No.
CA-99-156-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 1999); see Warren v. Baskerville,
___ F.3d ___, 2000 WL 1692658 (4th Cir. Nov. 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
1
This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising
jurisdiction upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).
2
Although the district court relied upon Green v. French, 143
F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1090 (1999) in its
denial of Woodley’s § 2254 petition, the denial of relief never-
theless was correct under the standards announced in Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).
2