Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Franklin E. Dennison v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 95-6455 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6455 Visitors: 35
Filed: Nov. 17, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 70 F.3d 111 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Franklin E. DENNISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-6455. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Su
More

70 F.3d 111

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 95-6455.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 19, 1995.
Decided: November 17, 1995.

Franklin E. Dennison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, 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, as well as the denial of his motion for discovery and motion to show cause. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dennison v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-1697-3-OBD (D.S.C. Aug. 4, 1994; Sept. 26, 1994; March 13, 1995). 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.

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