Filed: May 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8551 THOMAS G. RUTHERS, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN GULCH, Warden, FCI Bastrop; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-206-2) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 9, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8551 THOMAS G. RUTHERS, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN GULCH, Warden, FCI Bastrop; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-206-2) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 9, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8551 THOMAS G. RUTHERS, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN GULCH, Warden, FCI Bastrop; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-206-2) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 9, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas G. Ruthers, II, Appellant Pro Se. William David Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 re- lief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to ap- peal and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Ruthers v. Gulch, No. CA-94-206-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 1995). Appellant identi- fied several issues in his informal brief which he claims were not ruled on by the district court. We find that these issues were either incorporated into the district court's ruling, or wholly without merit. 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