Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Joseph Isiah Johnson v. Edward Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 95-6694 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6694 Visitors: 64
Filed: Dec. 15, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 72 F.3d 127 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Joseph Isiah JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-6694. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 16, 1995. Decided Dec
More

72 F.3d 127
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Joseph Isiah JOHNSON, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Edward MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent--Appellee.

No. 95-6694.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 15, 1995.

Joseph Isiah Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-94-278-AM)

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Murray, No. CA-94-278-AM (E.D.Va. Apr. 5, 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.

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