Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Marsh v. Cepak, 97-6723 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6723 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 28, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6723 TIMOTHY L. MARSH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2150-6) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6723 TIMOTHY L. MARSH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES J. CEPAK, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2150-6) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy L. Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). 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 appealabil- ity and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Marsh v. Cepak, No. CA-96-2150-6 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 1997). We dis- pense 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 2
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