Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Comegys v. Stouffer, 02-6889 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6889 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6889 ROBERT L. COMEGYS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correctional Training Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 02-948-DKC) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 10, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6889 ROBERT L. COMEGYS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correctional Training Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 02-948-DKC) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 10, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Comegys, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert L. Comegys seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Comegys has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Comegys v. Stouffer, No. CA-02-948-DKC (D. Md. filed May 3, 2002; entered May 6, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 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