Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rich v. State of SC, 98-6693 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-6693 Visitors: 27
Filed: Sep. 24, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6693 JOHN J. RICH, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CARL FREDRICKS, Warden of Goodman Correctional Institution; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2935-3-13BC) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MUR
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6693 JOHN J. RICH, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CARL FREDRICKS, Warden of Goodman Correctional Institution; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2935-3-13BC) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Rich, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John J. Rich, Sr., 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 certif- icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Rich v. South Carolina, No. CA-97-2935-3- 13BC (D.S.C. Apr. 2, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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