James Tinsley, A/K/A Virgel St. John v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution

Fourth Circuit

James Tinsley, A/K/A Virgel St. John v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23467, 1995 WL 378438

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1995

Docket95-6382

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (James Tinsley, A/K/A Virgel St. John v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution) 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 Tinsley, A/K/A Virgel St. John v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23467, 1995 WL 378438 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 TINSLEY, a/k/a Virgel St. John, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard S. LINDLER, Warden, McCormick Correctional
Institution, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-6382.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 27, 1995.

James Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to strike, rehear, or appeal from the court's earlier order dismissing without prejudice his request for habeas relief based on Appellant's failure to exhaust his state remedies. Because we recently affirmed the district court's prior order in Tinsley v. Lindler, No. 95-6121 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 1995) (unpublished), we affirm the court's decision to deny Appellant's motion. 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

59 F.3d 167
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 TINSLEY, a/k/a Virgel St. John, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard S. LINDLER, Warden, McCormick Correctional
Institution, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-6382.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 27, 1995.

James Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to strike, rehear, or appeal from the court's earlier order dismissing without prejudice his request for habeas relief based on Appellant's failure to exhaust his state remedies. Because we recently affirmed the district court's prior order in Tinsley v. Lindler, No. 95-6121 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 1995) (unpublished), we affirm the court's decision to deny Appellant's motion. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23467, 1995 WL 378438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-tinsley-aka-virgel-st-john-v-richard-s-lindl-ca4-1995.