Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ronald Avon Johnson v. Ronald E. Moats, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 95-7166 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7166 Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 12, 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Summary: 72 F.3d 127 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ronald Avon JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald E. MOATS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-7166. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 16, 1995. 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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ronald Avon JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald E. MOATS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7166.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-527-HAR)

Ronald Avon Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Moats, No. CA-95-527-HAR (D.Md. July 11, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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