Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gamble v. Evatt, 95-6641 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6641 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6641 ROBERT LEE GAMBLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-94-2193-6-19AK) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as m
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6641 ROBERT LEE GAMBLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-94-2193-6-19AK) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Gamble, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gamble v. Evatt, No. CA-94-2193-6-19AK (D.S.C. Apr. 13, 1995). We, however, modify the district court's order to reflect that its dismissal should have been with prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 2
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