Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bruce E. Anderson v. Warden, Bland Correctional Center, 94-7119 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7119 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 19, 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Summary: 82 F.3d 409 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Bruce E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Bland Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-7119. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 30, 1995. Decided April 19, 1996. E.D.Va. AFFIRMED.
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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Bruce E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Bland Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-7119.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 30, 1995.
Decided April 19, 1996.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-93-759)

Bruce E. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Anderson v. Warden, No. CA-93-759 (E.D.Va. Sept. 26, 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

*

The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988)

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