Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John C. Robinson v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 94-6398 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6398 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 10, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 824 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 C. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-6398. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

60 F.3d 824
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 C. ROBINSON, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents--Appellees.

No. 94-6398.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 24, 1995.
Decided: July 10, 1995.

John C. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

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. Robinson v. South Carolina, No. CA-93-1696 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 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