Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michael Elandous Johnson v. Charles Hill, 96-6083 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6083 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 13, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 105 F.3d 647 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael Elandous JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles HILL, Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-6083. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 10, 1996. Decided Jan. 13, 1997. Appeal from the United States
More

105 F.3d 647

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael Elandous JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Charles HILL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6083.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 10, 1996.
Decided Jan. 13, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-559-5-HC-F)

Michael Elandous Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, 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).* 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. Johnson v. Hill, No. CA-95-559-5-HC-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 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.

DISMISSED

*

Effective April 26, 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Because Johnson filed this appeal prior to the Act's enactment, we need not consider what effect the Act would have on this appeal

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