Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brian Michael Bumbrey v. Warden of Patuxent Institution, Commissioner of Maryland Department of Corrections, 91-7503 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-7503 Visitors: 54
Filed: Mar. 25, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 929 F.2d 691 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Brian Michael BUMBREY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION, et al, Commissioner of Maryland Department of Corrections, et al, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-7503. United States Court of A
More

929 F.2d 691
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Brian Michael BUMBREY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION, et al, Commissioner of
Maryland Department of Corrections, et al,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-7503.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 1991.
Decided March 25, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-90-2977-S)

Brian Michael Bumbrey, appellant pro se.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Brian Michael Bumbrey 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. Bumbrey v. Warden of Patuxent Inst., CA-90-2977-S (D.Md. Nov. 26, 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.

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