Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bobby L. Wideman v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 95-6965 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6965 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 83 F.3d 417 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Bobby L. WIDEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-6965. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

83 F.3d 417

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Bobby L. WIDEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6965.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 1996.
Decided April 23, 1996.

Bobby L. Wideman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wideman v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-1022-6-22AK (D.S.C. May 30, 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.

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