Alexander Hines v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Attorney General of South Carolina

38 F.3d 1213, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36655, 1994 WL 560661
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 14, 1994
Docket93-6247
StatusPublished

This text of 38 F.3d 1213 (Alexander Hines v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Attorney General of South Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander Hines v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Attorney General of South Carolina, 38 F.3d 1213, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36655, 1994 WL 560661 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

38 F.3d 1213
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Alexander HINES, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-6247.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 16, 1993
Decided: Oct. 14, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-20-3-8AJ)

Alexander Hines, Petitioner Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Respondents.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Hines seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hines v. Evatt, No. CA-92-20-3-8AJ (D.S.C. Feb. 24, 1993). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 F.3d 1213, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36655, 1994 WL 560661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-hines-v-parker-evatt-commissioner-south-carolina-department-of-ca4-1994.