Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robert Clifton Johnson, Jr. v. Stephen Siebert, 89-7214 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-7214 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 14, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 904 F.2d 700 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Robert Clifton JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen SIEBERT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-7214. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: May 7, 1990. Decided: May 23, 1990. Rehearin
More

904 F.2d 700
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Robert Clifton JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Stephen SIEBERT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-7214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 7, 1990.
Decided: May 23, 1990.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge. (C/A No. 89-2759-N).

Robert Clifton Johnson, Jr., appellant pro se.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Robert Clifton Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.* Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Siebert, C/A No. 89-2759-N (D.Md. Oct. 12, 1989). 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

*

The petition for relief was mislabeled as a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action; however, as Johnson was challenging the facts of his confinement, rather than the conditions, the petition is more properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 action

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