Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ronald Harrison Nixon, A/K/A Rondal Harrison Nixon v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 95-6097 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6097 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 27, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 59 F.3d 167 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ronald Harrison NIXON, a/k/a Rondal Harrison Nixon, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-6097. United States Court of Ap
More

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ronald Harrison NIXON, a/k/a Rondal Harrison Nixon,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6097.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 1995.
Decided June 27, 1995.

Ronald Harrison Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, 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. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Nixon v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-1068-6-19AK (D.S.C. Dec. 20, 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.

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