Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dale Russell Goodrich v. Johnny Klevenhagen, Sheriff of Harris County, Texas Attorney General of the State of Texas, 95-6084 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6084 Visitors: 40
Filed: Mar. 23, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 50 F.3d 6 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Dale Russell GOODRICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Johnny KLEVENHAGEN, Sheriff of Harris County, Texas; Attorney General of the State of Texas, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-6084. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitte
More

50 F.3d 6

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Dale Russell GOODRICH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Johnny KLEVENHAGEN, Sheriff of Harris County, Texas;
Attorney General of the State of Texas,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6084.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1995.
Decided March 23, 1995.

Dale Russell Goodrich, appellant pro se.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Appellant seeks release from confinement but before such relief could be granted, he must exhaust available state remedies. See Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 73 (4th Cir.1983). The record fails to reveal such exhaustion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Goodrich v. Klevenhagen, No. CA-94-224-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 28, 1994). 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