Thomas M. Blankenship v. Manfred G. Holland, Warden of West Virginia Penitentiary

859 F.2d 149, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13901, 1988 WL 97392
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 19, 1988
Docket88-7098
StatusUnpublished

This text of 859 F.2d 149 (Thomas M. Blankenship v. Manfred G. Holland, Warden of West Virginia Penitentiary) 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
Thomas M. Blankenship v. Manfred G. Holland, Warden of West Virginia Penitentiary, 859 F.2d 149, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13901, 1988 WL 97392 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

859 F.2d 149
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas M. BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Manfred G. HOLLAND, Warden of West Virginia Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-7098.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 19, 1988.
Decided Sept. 19, 1988.

Thomas M. Blankenship, appellant pro se.

Silas Bent Taylor, Office of Attorney General of West Virginia, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, K.K. HALL, and JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* Blankenship v. Holland, CA-85-150-E (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 15, 1988). 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.

*

Because the ruling by the district court was not "with prejudice" and did not determine the cause "on the merits," Blankenship is entitled to refile his claim when, and if, he is in West Virginia custody

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

Related

Anderson v. Mackall
859 F.2d 149 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
859 F.2d 149, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13901, 1988 WL 97392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-m-blankenship-v-manfred-g-holland-warden-of-ca4-1988.