Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles R. Mabry v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General, 94-7012 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7012 Visitors: 69
Filed: Jul. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 823 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Charles R. MABRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard S. LINDLER, Warden; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-7012. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: April 11, 1995. Decided
More

60 F.3d 823
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Charles R. MABRY, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Richard S. LINDLER, Warden; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 94-7012.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 1995.
Decided: July 6, 1995.

Charles R. Mabry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, 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. Mabry v. Lindler, No. CA-91-2781-3-19BC (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 1994). We deny Appellant's request for counsel on appeal. 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.

2

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