Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Darryl L. Wright v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 94-6987 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6987 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 09, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 48 F.3d 1218 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Darryl L. WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Parker EVATT, Commissioner; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-6987. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitt
More

48 F.3d 1218
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Darryl L. WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 94-6987.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 16, 1995.
Decided: March 9, 1995.

Darryl L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation 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. Wright v. Evatt, No. CA-94-2073-3-21AK (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 1994).

2

Further, we deny Appellant's Motion for Relief from Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); such a motion is more properly filed in the district court. 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