Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robert Lee Hunt, Jr. v. Michael W. Moore, Director of Scdc Richie Harrison, Warden of MCI Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 95-8563 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-8563 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 78 F.3d 578 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Lee HUNT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael W. MOORE, Director of SCDC; Richie Harrison, Warden of MCI; Attorney General of The State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-8563. United States Court of App
More

78 F.3d 578

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Lee HUNT, Jr., Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Michael W. MOORE, Director of SCDC; Richie Harrison, Warden
of MCI; Attorney General of The State of South
Carolina, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 95-8563.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 1996.
Decided Feb. 29, 1996.

Robert Lee Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Hunt v. Moore, No. CA-95-1474-6-18AK (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 1995 & Dec. 4, 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