Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Love v. State of South Carolina George N. Martin, Iii, Warden Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, T. Travis Medlock, 92-6694 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6694 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jun. 21, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 995 F.2d 1063 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Michael LOVE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; George N. Martin, III, Warden; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, T. Travis Medlock, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6694. United States Court of Appeals
More

995 F.2d 1063

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael LOVE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; George N. Martin, III, Warden;
Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,
T. Travis Medlock, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6694.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 24, 1993.
Decided: June 21, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry Michael Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-90-756-3-20)

Michael Love, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Michael Love seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Love v. South Carolina, No. CA-90-756-3-20 (D.S.C. June 5, 1992). We also deny Love's motion for 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.

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