Larry Lee Lewis v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution T. Travis Medlock, South Carolina Attorney General

943 F.2d 49
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 24, 1991
Docket91-6602
StatusUnpublished

This text of 943 F.2d 49 (Larry Lee Lewis v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution T. Travis Medlock, South Carolina Attorney General) 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
Larry Lee Lewis v. Richard S. Lindler, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution T. Travis Medlock, South Carolina Attorney General, 943 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

943 F.2d 49

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Larry Lee LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Richard S. LINDLER, Warden, McCormick Correctional
Institution; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, South Carolina
Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-6602.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 1991.
Decided Sept. 12, 1991.
As Amended Oct. 24, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-90-3031-3-6B)

Larry Lee Lewis, appellant pro se.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lee Lewis seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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. Lewis v. Lindler, CA-90-3031-3-6B (D.S.C. June 7, 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.

DISMISSED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
943 F.2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-lee-lewis-v-richard-s-lindler-warden-mccormick-correctional-ca4-1991.