Dennis Bibbs v. S.R. Witkowski, Warden T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina

54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17366, 1995 WL 295528
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 16, 1995
Docket94-7078
StatusPublished

This text of 54 F.3d 772 (Dennis Bibbs v. S.R. Witkowski, Warden T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General for the State 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
Dennis Bibbs v. S.R. Witkowski, Warden T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, 54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17366, 1995 WL 295528 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

54 F.3d 772
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Dennis BIBBS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
S.R. WITKOWSKI, Warden; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General
for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 94-7078.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 28, 1995.
Decided May 16, 1995.

Dennis Bibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from 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. Bibbs v. Witkowski, No. CA-94-245-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 26, 1994). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17366, 1995 WL 295528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-bibbs-v-sr-witkowski-warden-t-travis-medloc-ca4-1995.