Richard A. Schmidt v. William Smith Attorney General of the State of Maryland

Fourth Circuit

Richard A. Schmidt v. William Smith Attorney General of the State of Maryland

74 F.3d 1233, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39051, 1996 WL 13931

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1996

Docket95-6353

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1233 (Richard A. Schmidt v. William Smith 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

Richard A. Schmidt v. William Smith Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 74 F.3d 1233, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39051, 1996 WL 13931 (4th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

74 F.3d 1233
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Richard A. SCHMIDT, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
William SMITH; Attorney General of The STATE of Maryland,
Respondents--Appellees.

No. 95-6353.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 16, 1996.

Richard A. Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Kathryn Grill Graeff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals 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. Schmidt v. Smith, No. CA-94-536-N (D.Md. Feb. 15, 1995). 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

74 F.3d 1233
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Richard A. SCHMIDT, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
William SMITH; Attorney General of The STATE of Maryland,
Respondents--Appellees.

No. 95-6353.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 16, 1996.

Richard A. Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Kathryn Grill Graeff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals 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. Schmidt v. Smith, No. CA-94-536-N (D.Md. Feb. 15, 1995). 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)

74 F.3d 1233, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39051, 1996 WL 13931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-a-schmidt-v-william-smith-attorney-general-ca4-1996.