Rochester v. South Carolina

Fourth Circuit

Rochester v. South Carolina

378 F. App'x 374

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 18, 2010·No. No. 10-6050·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rochester v. South Carolina, No. 2:09-cv-03148-HMH-SC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2009). 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 [375]*375decisional process. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rochester v. South Carolina, No. 2:09-cv-03148-HMH-SC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2009). 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 [375]*375decisional process. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Rochester v. South Carolina, 378 F. App'x 374 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

378 F. App'x 374 (Rochester v. South Carolina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.