Ronald Harrison Nixon, A/K/A Rondal Harrison Nixon v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23450, 1995 WL 378518
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 27, 1995
Docket95-6097
StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (Ronald Harrison Nixon, A/K/A Rondal Harrison Nixon v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State 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
Ronald Harrison Nixon, A/K/A Rondal Harrison Nixon v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23450, 1995 WL 378518 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ronald Harrison NIXON, a/k/a Rondal Harrison Nixon,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-6097.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 1995.
Decided June 27, 1995.

Ronald Harrison Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Nixon v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-1068-6-19AK (D.S.C. Dec. 20, 1994). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23450, 1995 WL 378518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-harrison-nixon-aka-rondal-harrison-nixon-v--ca4-1995.