Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nathan Bush v. Martha Wannamaker, Warden, Attorney General of South Carolina, 91-6001 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6001 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 20, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 935 F.2d 1285 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Nathan BUSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martha WANNAMAKER, Warden, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-6001. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 15, 1
More

935 F.2d 1285
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Nathan BUSH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Martha WANNAMAKER, Warden, Attorney General of South
Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6001.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 1991.
Decided June 20, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Clyde H. Hamilton, District Judge. (CA-90-311-3)

Nathan Bush, appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Nathan Bush 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 judge 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. Bush v. Wannamaker, CA-90-311-3 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 1990). 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