Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Benjamin E. Cox v. Anthony Hathaway, Iii, Superintendent Frank Lin Freeman, 96-7109 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7109 Visitors: 25
Filed: Dec. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 103 F.3d 116 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Benjamin E. COX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Superintendent; Frank Lin Freeman, Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-7109. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 21, 1996. Decided Dec. 12,
More

103 F.3d 116

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Benjamin E. COX, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Superintendent; Frank Lin Freeman,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-7109.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 1996.
Decided Dec. 12, 1996.

Benjamin E. Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Associate Attorney General, Mark John Pletzke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cox v. Hathaway, No. CA-95-952-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 11, 1996). 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