Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Milton McCray v. Warden Mason J. Joseph Curran, Jr., the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, 92-7017 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-7017 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 22, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 986 F.2d 1414 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Milton MCCRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden MASON; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-7017. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: February
More

986 F.2d 1414

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Milton MCCRAY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Warden MASON; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General
for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-7017.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 1993
Decided: February 22, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge. (CA-91-3317-JH)

Milton McCray, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Jennifer Landis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Milton McCray 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. McCray v. Mason, No. CA-91-3317-JH (D. Md. Sept. 18, 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