Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Daryl B. Stewart, and v. P. Douglas Taylor, Warden T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 94-6016 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-6016 Visitors: 68
Filed: Mar. 17, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 19 F.3d 1430 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Daryl B. STEWART, Petitioner and Appellant, v. P. Douglas TAYLOR, Warden; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents Appellees. No. 94-6016. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Subm
More

19 F.3d 1430

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Daryl B. STEWART, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
P. Douglas TAYLOR, Warden; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 94-6016.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 17, 1994.
Decided March 17, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1648)

Daryl B. Stewart, appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Stewart v. Taylor, No. CA-93-1648 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 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.

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