Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Frank Linwood Elam v. Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, 94-6481 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6481 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 25, 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Summary: 30 F.3d 129 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Frank Linwood ELAM, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WARDEN, Buckingham Correctional Center, Defendant Appellee. No. 94-6481. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: June 23, 1994 Decided: July 25, 1994. Appeal from the U
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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Frank Linwood ELAM, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Buckingham Correctional Center, Defendant Appellee.

No. 94-6481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 23, 1994
Decided: July 25, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-93-140-R)

Frank Linwood Elam, Appellant Pro Se.

Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

W.D.Va.

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 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. Elam v. Warden, Buckingham Correctional Ctr., No. CA-93-140-R (W.D.Va. Mar. 29, 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.

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