Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Joseph W. Miller v. Robert A. Harleston, Warden of the Eastern Correctional Institution Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 92-6527 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6527 Visitors: 64
Filed: Jul. 31, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 341 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Joseph W. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert A. HARLESTON, Warden of the Eastern Correctional Institution; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6527. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth
More

972 F.2d 341

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Joseph W. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Robert A. HARLESTON, Warden of the Eastern Correctional
Institution; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6527.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 1992
Decided: July 31, 1992

Joseph W. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Diane Elizabeth Keller, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Joseph W. Miller appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Miller v. Harleston, No. CA-91-1094 (D. Md. Apr. 21, 1992). 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.

AFFIRMED

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