Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Clarence Lee Wright v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 88-7228 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-7228 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 24, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 872 F.2d 420 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Clarence Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 88-7228. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitte
More

872 F.2d 420
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Clarence Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-7228.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 28, 1989.
Decided March 24, 1989.

Clarence Lee Wright, appellant pro se.

Robert Q. Harris, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for appellee.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Clarence Lee Wright seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wright v. Murray, C/A No. 87-786-N (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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