Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Neil Francis Cohen v. Lloyd Waters, Warden J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 96-6028 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6028 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 82 F.3d 409 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Neil Francis COHEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lloyd WATERS, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-6028. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted
More

82 F.3d 409

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Neil Francis COHEN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Lloyd WATERS, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General of the State of Maryland, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 96-6028.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 21, 1996.

Decided April 16, 1996.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-143-HAR)

Neil Francis Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gary Eugene Bair, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cohen v. Waters, No. CA-94-143-HAR (D.Md. Nov. 29, 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