Doris Kirkpatrick v. Warden, State Park Correctional Center T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

45 F.3d 426, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5836, 1995 WL 3667
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 1995
Docket93-7209
StatusPublished

This text of 45 F.3d 426 (Doris Kirkpatrick v. Warden, State Park Correctional Center T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of 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
Doris Kirkpatrick v. Warden, State Park Correctional Center T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 45 F.3d 426, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5836, 1995 WL 3667 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

45 F.3d 426
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Doris KIRKPATRICK, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, STATE PARK CORRECTIONAL CENTER; T. Travis Medlock,
Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-7209.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted October 31, 1994.
Decided January 4, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-2253-3-1AK)

Doris Kirkpatrick, appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kirkpatrick v. Warden, No. CA-92-2253-3-1AK (D.S.C. Oct. 19, 1993). Additionally, we deny the motion seeking appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 F.3d 426, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5836, 1995 WL 3667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doris-kirkpatrick-v-warden-state-park-correctional-ca4-1995.