Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray Virginia Department of Corrections Attorney General of Virginia, 92-6018 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6018 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 28, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 956 F.2d 263 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Marvin Leon GRIMM, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward W. MURRAY; Virginia Department of Corrections; Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6018. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb
More

956 F.2d 263

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Marvin Leon GRIMM, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY; Virginia Department of Corrections;
Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6018.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
Decided Feb. 28, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-90-663-3)

Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr., appellant pro se.

Robert Quentin Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr. seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order refusing relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).* Our review of the record and the magistrate judge's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny Appellant's Motion for Release Pending Appeal, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Grimm v. Murray, No. CA-90-663-3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 6, 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.

*

The case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1988)

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