John Taylor Bowles v. Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Robert McDonald Caroline George

Fourth Circuit

John Taylor Bowles v. Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Robert McDonald Caroline George

54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17406, 1995 WL 298106

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 1995

Docket94-7020

StatusPublished

This text of 54 F.3d 772 (John Taylor Bowles v. Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Robert McDonald Caroline George) 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

John Taylor Bowles v. Attorney General of the State of Maryland, and Robert McDonald Caroline George, 54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17406, 1995 WL 298106 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

John Taylor BOWLES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Maryland, Respondent-Appellee,
and
Robert McDONALD; Caroline George, Respondents.

No. 94-7020.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 17, 1995.

John Taylor Bowles, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie Johnston Smith, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Diane Elizabeth Keller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bowles v. McDonald, No. CA-91-1468-N (D.Md. Aug. 2, 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.

AFFIRMED

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

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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

John Taylor BOWLES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Maryland, Respondent-Appellee,
and
Robert McDONALD; Caroline George, Respondents.

No. 94-7020.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 17, 1995.

John Taylor Bowles, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie Johnston Smith, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Diane Elizabeth Keller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bowles v. McDonald, No. CA-91-1468-N (D.Md. Aug. 2, 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.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 F.3d 772, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17406, 1995 WL 298106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-taylor-bowles-v-attorney-general-of-the-state-ca4-1995.