Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 F.3d 426

Docket Nos. 94-6284, 94-7229.

Isiah James, Jr. v. John H. Carmichael, Jr., Warden Parker Evatt Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Isiah James, Jr. v. John H. Carmichael, Jr., Warden Parker Evatt Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • Isiah JAMES, Jrv.John H. CARMICHAEL, Jr., Warden; Parker Evatt; Attorney General of The State of South Carolina
  • Isiah JAMES, Jrv.John H. CARMICHAEL, Jr., Warden; Parker Evatt; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Dec. 13, 1994. Decided Jan. 6, 1995.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-01-06

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Melvin Wayne Martin v. Lieutenant Alan R. Buzzard Officer Patterson Officer Pugh

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1995-01-06

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-2411-3-3AK).

Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record, the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we deny certificates of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. James v. Carmichael, No. CA-92-2411-3-3AK (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 1994; Oct. 18, 1994). 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.

¶2

DISMISSED.

/45/f3d/426 · .json · Public domain