Nicholas Warner Jones, A/K/A Charles Jones v. Sewall B. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

993 F.2d 1537, 1993 WL 181163
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 28, 1993
Docket93-6253
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 993 F.2d 1537 (Nicholas Warner Jones, A/K/A Charles Jones v. Sewall B. Smith, 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
Nicholas Warner Jones, A/K/A Charles Jones v. Sewall B. Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 993 F.2d 1537, 1993 WL 181163 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

993 F.2d 1537

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Nicholas Warner JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Sewall B. SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6253.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 1993
Decided: May 28, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-91-3274-L)

Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Diane Elizabeth Keller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Nicholas Warner Jones appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.* 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Smith, No. CA-91-3274-L (D. Md. March 1, 1993). We deny the motion for 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

*

The district court also properly dismissed without prejudice Jones' claims challenging conditions of confinement. Such claims should be raised in a separate civil rights action. Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 72 (4th Cir. 1983)

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

Related

Alward v. Rokosky
D. Maryland, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
993 F.2d 1537, 1993 WL 181163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-warner-jones-aka-charles-jones-v-sewall-b-smith-warden-ca4-1993.