Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bernard Lambright v. George N. Martin, Iii, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 93-6954 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6954 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 06, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 23 F.3d 401 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Bernard LAMBRIGHT, Petitioner Appellant, v. George N. MARTIN, III, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents Appellees. No. 93-6954. United States Court of Appeals,
More

23 F.3d 401
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Bernard LAMBRIGHT, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
George N. MARTIN, III, Warden of Broad River Correctional
Institution; Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina, Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-6954.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 21, 1994.
May 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-708-OAJ-3)

Bernard Lambright, appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Lambright v. Martin, No. CA-92-708-OAJ-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 1993). 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