Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John H. Gange, Jr. v. John P. Galley Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 91-7182 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7182 Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 05, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 956 F.2d 1162 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. John H. GANGE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. John P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-7182. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 8, 1992. Decided March 5,
More

956 F.2d 1162

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John H. GANGE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
John P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-7182.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 8, 1992.
Decided March 5, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-88-1962-WN)

John H. Gange, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

John H. Gange, Jr. appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gange v. Galley, No. CA-88-1962-WN (D.Md. Mar. 11, 1991). 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

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