Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James H. Newkirk, Jr. v. William L. Smith, Warden Richard A. Lanham, Sr., Commissioner, Etc. Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 93-6901 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-6901 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 04, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 11 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. James H. NEWKIRK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. SMITH, Warden; Richard A. Lanham, Sr., Commissioner, etc.; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-6901. United States Court of Appeals, Fou
More

19 F.3d 11

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James H. NEWKIRK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William L. SMITH, Warden; Richard A. Lanham, Sr.,
Commissioner, etc.; Attorney General of the State
of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6901.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided March 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-93-788-WN)

James H. Newkirk, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Newkirk v. Smith, No. CA-93-788-WN (D. Md. Aug. 13, 1993). 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