Minnick v. Corcoran ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6074
RONALD JAMES MINNICK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-97-849-WMN)
Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Lawrence Gitomer, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN-
ERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald James Minnick seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), and on his motion filed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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. Nor do we find abuse of
discretion in the district court’s denial of Minnick’s motion for
reconsideration. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’r, 945 F.2d
716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See Minnick v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-849-WMN (D. Md.
Feb. 25, 1999; Dec. 9, 1999). We dispense with oral argument be-
cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2