Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ridley v. Beshears, 98-7262 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7262 Visitors: 42
Filed: Nov. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7262 ARTHUR J. RIDLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1201-JFM) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7262 ARTHUR J. RIDLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1201-JFM) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur J. Ridley, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At- torney 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Arthur J. Ridley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea- soning of the district court. Ridley v. Beshears, No. CA-98-1201- JFM (D. Md. Aug. 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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