Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John Rodgers Burnley v. Commanding General, McRd Parris Island, South Carolina United States Marine Corps, 92-7214 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-7214 Visitors: 36
Filed: Feb. 25, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 986 F.2d 1412 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Rodgers BURNLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMANDING GENERAL, MCRD, Parris Island, South Carolina; United States Marine Corps, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-7214. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Febr
More

986 F.2d 1412

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 Rodgers BURNLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMANDING GENERAL, MCRD, Parris Island, South Carolina;
United States Marine Corps, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-7214.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 1993
Decided: February 25, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-92-748)

John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

John Rodgers Burnley seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.s 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion 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. Burnley v. Commanding General, No. CA-92-748 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 1992). 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

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