Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Curtis L. Harris v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 91-6338 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6338 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 10, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 966 F.2d 1442 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Curtis L. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-6338. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted
More

966 F.2d 1442

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Curtis L. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6338.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 1992
Decided: June 10, 1992

Curtis L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

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

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Curtis L. Harris seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. South Carolina, No. CA-91-2786 (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 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.

DISMISSED

*

Harris has filed a "Motion for an Ending of the Rigors of ImprisonmentConsideration-En Banc." No poll has been requested on the suggestion for hearing in banc. Harris's motion is considered and denied

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