Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robbins v. Freeman, 97-6526 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6526 Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6526 JOHNNY LEE ROBBINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; J. V. TURLINGTON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-762-5-F3) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6526 JOHNNY LEE ROBBINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; J. V. TURLINGTON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-762-5-F3) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Lee Robbins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). 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 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of ap- pealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Robbins v. Freeman, No. CA-96-762-5-F3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 1997). Further, we deny Appellant's motion for transcripts at government expense and his motion for appointment of counsel. 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