Malcolm Reese v. P. Douglas Taylor, Warden, L.C.I. Attorney General of South Carolina

16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7296, 1994 WL 8256
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 11, 1994
Docket93-6916
StatusPublished

This text of 16 F.3d 411 (Malcolm Reese v. P. Douglas Taylor, Warden, L.C.I. Attorney General of South Carolina) 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
Malcolm Reese v. P. Douglas Taylor, Warden, L.C.I. Attorney General of South Carolina, 16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7296, 1994 WL 8256 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

16 F.3d 411
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Malcolm REESE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
P. Douglas TAYLOR, Warden, L.C.I.; Attorney General of
South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6916.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 1993.
Decided Jan. 11, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-3185-3-8AJ).

Malcolm Reese, appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Reese v. Taylor, No. CA-92-3185-3-8AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 1993). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F.3d 411, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 7296, 1994 WL 8256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malcolm-reese-v-p-douglas-taylor-warden-lci-attorn-ca4-1994.