Steven C. Wilson v. Charles Hill

Fourth Circuit

Steven C. Wilson v. Charles Hill

17 F.3d 1435, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12226, 1994 WL 36716

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1994

Docket93-6950

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.3d 1435 (Steven C. Wilson v. Charles Hill) 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

Steven C. Wilson v. Charles Hill, 17 F.3d 1435, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12226, 1994 WL 36716 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

17 F.3d 1435
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Steven C. WILSON, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
Charles HILL, Respondent Appellee.

No. 93-6950.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided Feb. 9, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-92-505-HC-BO)

Steven C. Wilson, appellant pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Hill, No. CA-92-505-HC-BO (E.D.N.C. July 26, 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.

AFFIRMED

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

17 F.3d 1435
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Steven C. WILSON, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
Charles HILL, Respondent Appellee.

No. 93-6950.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994.
Decided Feb. 9, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-92-505-HC-BO)

Steven C. Wilson, appellant pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Hill, No. CA-92-505-HC-BO (E.D.N.C. July 26, 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.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.3d 1435, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12226, 1994 WL 36716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-c-wilson-v-charles-hill-ca4-1994.