Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

840 F.2d 11

Docket No. 87-6582.

Mitchell v. Allen

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Nov. 30, 1987. Decided Feb. 19, 1988.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1988-02-19

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

Relies on Roseboro v. Garrison · Nantahala Power and Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Town of Highlands, North Carolina Haywood Electric Membership Corporation North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, Intervenors

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1988-02-19

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Gary Lewis Mitchell, appellant pro se.

Richard Norwood League, Office of Attorney General, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that an appeal from its order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 would be without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, dispense with oral argument, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* Mitchell v. Allen, C/A No. 87-51-A-C (W.D.N.C. July 24, 1987).

¶2

DISMISSED.

*

The district court should have afforded Mitchell notice and an opportunity to respond before granting the respondents' motion to dismiss, which was filed with supporting materials. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975). However, because Mitchell did in fact respond to both the original answer and motion and to the respondents' supplemental answer, we conclude that the error was harmless

/840/f2d/11 · .json · Public domain