Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kelvin J. Miles v. Audrey E. Melbourne, Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland, Respondent, 88-6860 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-6860 Visitors: 75
Filed: Mar. 08, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 870 F.2d 655 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Kelvin J. MILES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Audrey E. MELBOURNE, Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland, Respondent- Appellee. No. 88-6860. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Dec.
More

870 F.2d 655
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Kelvin J. MILES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Audrey E. MELBOURNE, Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit of
Maryland, Respondent- Appellee.

No. 88-6860.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 21, 1988.
Decided March 8, 1989.

Kelvin J. Miles, appellant pro se.

Ann Elizabeth Singleton, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, SPROUSE, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Kelvin J. Miles appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Miles v. Melbourne, C/A No. 85-4492-S (D.Md. Oct. 19, 1988). 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. We deny appellant's motion for appointment of counsel.

2

AFFIRMED.

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