Frank Lee Garrett v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24787, 1995 WL 404836
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 1995
Docket94-7066
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 821 (Frank Lee Garrett 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
Frank Lee Garrett v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24787, 1995 WL 404836 (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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Frank Lee GARRETT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-7066.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 22, 1995.
Decided July 10, 1995.

Frank Lee Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

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.* Garrett v. Murray, No. CA-93-516 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 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.

DISMISSED

*

We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel

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 24787, 1995 WL 404836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-lee-garrett-v-edward-w-murray-director-of-th-ca4-1995.