Clarence Lee Wright v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

872 F.2d 420, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3639, 1989 WL 29794
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 24, 1989
Docket88-7228
StatusUnpublished

This text of 872 F.2d 420 (Clarence Lee Wright v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections) 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
Clarence Lee Wright v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 872 F.2d 420, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3639, 1989 WL 29794 (4th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

872 F.2d 420
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Clarence Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-7228.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 28, 1989.
Decided March 24, 1989.

Clarence Lee Wright, appellant pro se.

Robert Q. Harris, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for appellee.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Lee Wright seeks to appeal 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 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. Wright v. Murray, C/A No. 87-786-N (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 1988). 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.

DISMISSED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
872 F.2d 420, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3639, 1989 WL 29794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-lee-wright-v-edward-w-murray-director-of--ca4-1989.