Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Walter D. Shannon v. State of South Carolina Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 95-8515 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-8515 Visitors: 17
Filed: May 02, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 85 F.3d 617 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Walter D. SHANNON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Attorney General of The State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-8515. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: April 15, 199
More

85 F.3d 617

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 95-8515.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 15, 1996.
Decided: May 2, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1425-0-20BD)

Walter D. Shannon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

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

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 a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Shannon v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-1425-0-20BD (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 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