Filed: Apr. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50514 Summary Calendar _ TERRENCE R. SPELLMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAN MORALES, Attorney General, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-94-CV-464) _ April 9, 1996 Before KING, GARWOOD, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Terrence Spellmon appeals from the dismissal of his suit, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. Bec
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50514 Summary Calendar _ TERRENCE R. SPELLMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAN MORALES, Attorney General, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-94-CV-464) _ April 9, 1996 Before KING, GARWOOD, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Terrence Spellmon appeals from the dismissal of his suit, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. Beca..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-50514
Summary Calendar
_____________________
TERRENCE R. SPELLMON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAN MORALES, Attorney General, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-94-CV-464)
_________________________________________________________________
April 9, 1996
Before KING, GARWOOD, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terrence Spellmon appeals from the dismissal of his suit,
without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.
Because Spellmon fails to state a constitutional violation, he
has not stated a claim for relief under either 28 U.S.C. § 2254
or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. see Orellana v. Kyle,
65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
116 S. Ct. 736 (1996). The district
court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.