James E. Mauzone, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland

935 F.2d 267, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17655, 1991 WL 99056
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 12, 1991
Docket91-6788
StatusUnpublished

This text of 935 F.2d 267 (James E. Mauzone, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland) 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
James E. Mauzone, Jr. v. James N. Rollins, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 935 F.2d 267, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17655, 1991 WL 99056 (4th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

935 F.2d 267
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James E. MAUZONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
James N. ROLLINS, Warden, Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6788

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 1991.
Decided June 12, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Norman P. Ramsey, District Judge. (CA-90-1398-R)

James E. Mauzone, Jr., appellant pro se.

John J. Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann N. Bosse, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James E. Mauzone, Jr., 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 judge 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. Mauzone v. Rollins, CA-90-1398-R (D.Md. Feb. 9, 1991). 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
935 F.2d 267, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17655, 1991 WL 99056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-mauzone-jr-v-james-n-rollins-warden-attorn-ca4-1991.