Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Tasker v. State of Maryland, 13-6219 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6219 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6219 JAMES E. TASKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-01869-AW) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6219 JAMES E. TASKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-01869-AW) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Tasker, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James E. Tasker appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely. Although the district court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the petition was timely filed, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in Tasker’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Tasker’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has waived appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Tasker’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s order. Tasker v. Maryland, No. 8:11-cv-01869-AW (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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