Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Melvin Connell Dodson v. B.C. Plageman Mary Sue Terry, 89-7228 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-7228 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 18, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 907 F.2d 1137 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Melvin Connell DODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.C. PLAGEMAN; Mary Sue Terry, Respondents-Appellees. No. 89-7228. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted June 4, 1990. Decided June 18, 1
More

907 F.2d 1137
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Melvin Connell DODSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
B.C. PLAGEMAN; Mary Sue Terry, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 89-7228.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 1990.
Decided June 18, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 89-1280-AM)

Melvin Connell Dodson, appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

Melvin Connell Dodson 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. Dodson v. Plageman, C/A No. 89-1280-AM (E.D.Va. 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.

2

DISMISSED.

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