Dedrick E. Elkin v. James D. Beam, Warden, Goodman Correctional Institution T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General for South Carolina

60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24782, 1995 WL 419174
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 14, 1995
Docket95-6611
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 821 (Dedrick E. Elkin v. James D. Beam, Warden, Goodman Correctional Institution T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General for 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
Dedrick E. Elkin v. James D. Beam, Warden, Goodman Correctional Institution T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General for South Carolina, 60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24782, 1995 WL 419174 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Dedrick E. ELKIN, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
James D. BEAM, Warden, Goodman Correctional Institution; T.
Travis Medlock, Attorney General for South
Carolina, Respondents--Appellees.

No. 95-6611.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 1995.
Decided: July 14, 1995.

Dedrick E. Elkin, appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Elkin v. Beam, No. CA-94-957-3-18BD (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 1995). 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)
60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24782, 1995 WL 419174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dedrick-e-elkin-v-james-d-beam-warden-goodman-corr-ca4-1995.