Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Harris, A/K/A John Wiley v. Lieutenant Colonel Tegetoff Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 95-7739 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7739 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 83 F.3d 415 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 HARRIS, a/k/a John Wiley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lieutenant Colonel TEGETOFF; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-7739. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Apr
More

83 F.3d 415

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 HARRIS, a/k/a John Wiley, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Lieutenant Colonel TEGETOFF; Attorney General of the State
of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7739.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 1996.
Decided April 25, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95-2606-CCB)

James Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion 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. Harris v. Tegetoff, No. CA-95-2606-CCB (D.Md. Sept. 18, 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