Filed: Aug. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6252 EDDIE LEE HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-1907-WMN) Submitted: August 13, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6252 EDDIE LEE HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-1907-WMN) Submitted: August 13, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6252 EDDIE LEE HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA- 95-1907-WMN) Submitted: August 13, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr., Assis- tant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. Waters, No. CA-95-1907-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 31, 1996). We deny the motion for oral argument and 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2