Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas Lee Royster v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 90-6308 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6308 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 18, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 911 F.2d 724 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Thomas Lee ROYSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 90-6308. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted July
More

911 F.2d 724
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas Lee ROYSTER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 90-6308.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 18, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, United States Magistrate. (C/A No. 89-569-R)

Thomas Lee Royster, appellant pro se.

Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Thomas Lee Royster seeks to appeal the magistrate's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.* Our review of the record and the magistrate'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 magistrate. Royster v. Murray, C/A No. 89-569-R (E.D.Va. Mar. 13, 1990). 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.

*

The magistrate exercised jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1)

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