Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carrigan v. Carter, 95-7020 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7020 Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7020 CHRISTINE ANN CARRIGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JAMES A. CARTER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-656-HAR) Submitted: December 5, 1995 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7020 CHRISTINE ANN CARRIGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JAMES A. CARTER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-656-HAR) Submitted: December 5, 1995 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christine Ann Carrigan, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find that dismissal based on failure to exhaust state remedies was appropriate. However, we modify the district court's order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice so that Appellant may exhaust her state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988). We also deny Appellant's motion for a plain error determina- tion. 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 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