Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Anthony Butler v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 95-6637 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6637 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jan. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 73 F.3d 356 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James Anthony BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-6637. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
More

73 F.3d 356
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

James Anthony BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6637.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 2, 1996.

James Anthony Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, 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. 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Butler v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-94-2466-6-21AK (D.S.C. Apr. 3, 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.

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