Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ralph Cooper v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 93-7107 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-7107 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 24, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 10 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ralph COOPER, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents Appellees. No. 93-7107. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Janua
More

19 F.3d 10

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 93-7107.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 20, 1994.
Decided: February 24, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-92-2194-A).

Ralph Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.

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

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

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. Cooper v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-92-2194-3-19-A (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 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