Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-6452 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6452 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 22, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 30 F.3d 129 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Joseph A. COOK, Petitioner Appellant, v. Parker EVATT, Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents Appellees. No. 94-6452. United Sta
More

30 F.3d 129

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Joseph A. COOK, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner of the South Carolina Department
of Corrections; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 94-6452.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 23, 1994.
Decided July 22, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-783-3-17AJ)

Joseph A. Cook, appellant pro se.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Evatt, No. CA-94-783-3-17AJ (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 1994). 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