Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bagley v. State of SC, 95-6981 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6981 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6981 BERNARD BAGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DONALD J. ZELENKA; PARKER EVATT; WILLIAM DAVIS; 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 Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2487-3-8AJ) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 199
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6981 BERNARD BAGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DONALD J. ZELENKA; PARKER EVATT; WILLIAM DAVIS; 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 Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2487-3-8AJ) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Travis Medlock, Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismiss- ing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. ยง 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 Appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bagley v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-2487-3-8AJ (D.S.C. May 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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