Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Arnold v. Mades, 01-7964 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7964 Visitors: 36
Filed: Mar. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7964 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERIFF MADES; MARTIN VAN EVANS, Lieutenant, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. No. 01-8094 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES MADES; MARTIN VAN EVANS; WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; M. KENNETH LONG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7964 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERIFF MADES; MARTIN VAN EVANS, Lieutenant, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. No. 01-8094 JAMES GUY ARNOLD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES MADES; MARTIN VAN EVANS; WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; M. KENNETH LONG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2347-AMD, CA-01-3087-AMD) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Guy Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Guy Arnold appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition in these consoli- dated cases. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Arnold v. Mades, Nos. CA-01-2347-AMD & CA-01- 3087-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 2 & 6, 2001 and filed Nov. 27; entered Nov. 29, 2001). We deny Arnold’s motion for emergency action in No. 01- 7964 and 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer