Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James E. Mauzone, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 91-6788 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6788 Visitors: 33
Filed: Jun. 12, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 935 F.2d 267 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James E. MAUZONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James N. ROLLINS, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-6788 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submit
More

935 F.2d 267
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James E. MAUZONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
James N. ROLLINS, Warden, Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6788

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 1991.
Decided June 12, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge. (CA-90-1398-R)

James E. Mauzone, Jr., appellant pro se.

John J. Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann N. Bosse, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

James E. Mauzone, 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Mauzone v. Rollins, CA-90-1398-R (D.Md. Feb. 9, 1991). 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