Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hatchett v. Corcoran, 98-6283 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6283 Visitors: 93
Filed: Sep. 02, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6283 TIMOTHY E. HATCHETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.-Annex; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-644-DKC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6283 TIMOTHY E. HATCHETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.--Annex; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-644-DKC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy E. Hatchett, Appellant Pro Se. David Jonathan Taube, Assis- tant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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 ap- pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hatchett v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-644-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 16, 1998). 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 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