Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ellis v. Hutchinson, 01-7981 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7981 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7981 RONALD QUITMAN ELLIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 00-1379-JFM) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Cir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7981 RONALD QUITMAN ELLIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 00-1379-JFM) Submitted: April 30, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Warren Bennett, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald Quitman Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Ellis v. Hutchinson, No. CA- 00-1379-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2001). 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 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