UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6652
SYLVESTER EMERSON WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-1900-6-3-AK, CA-95-38-6-3-AK, CA-95-40-6-3-AK)
Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed as modified in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Emerson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order
denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(1994) complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
icate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate
of appealability may be required, we deny such a certificate. We
dismiss the appeal of No. 6:94-1900-3AK on the reasoning of the
district court. Williams v. South Carolina, No. 6:94-1900-3AK(L)
(D.S.C. Apr. 12, 1995). We affirm as modified the judgments in
Nos. 6:95-38-3AK and 6:95-40-3AK. We modify the judgments dismiss-
ing the § 1983 actions to dismissals without prejudice because
Williams filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(1) before judgment and before the defendants filed a
responsive pleading. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART: AFFIRMED
AS MODIFIED IN PART
2