Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

849 F.2d 605

Docket No. 88-7545.

Holley v. Brown

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: April 26, 1988 Decided: May 31, 1988.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1988-05-31

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2009

1 district ·

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Harless · Lee v. Packard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1988-05-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Robert Holley, appellant pro se.

Ronald Mark Levitan (Office of the Attorney General of Maryland), for appellee.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Robert Holley appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holley v. Brown, C/A No. 86-3425-JH (D.Md. Dec. 15, 1987).

¶2

Holley has filed a motion in this Court for relief from his conviction and for other such relief as may be appropriate. To the extent Holley seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 regarding the adequacy of jury instructions at his trial, he must first exhaust the claim by presenting it to the Maryland state courts. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982). To the extent he seeks damages and other relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, he must first present his claims to the district court for disposition by that court. Therefore, the motion, except insofar as it requests summary disposition of this appeal, is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

¶3

AFFIRMED.

/849/f2d/605 · .json · Public domain