Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cantrell v. Evatt, 95-6712 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6712 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6712 PATRICIA C. CANTRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, 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. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-1212-6-18AK) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Bef
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6712 PATRICIA C. CANTRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, 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. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-1212-6-18AK) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Stevens Brown, V, William Harrell Foster, III, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cantrell v. Evatt, No. CA-94-1212-6-18AK (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 1995). 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 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