Thomas Ruff, Jr. v. State of South Carolina Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

23 F.3d 402, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18517, 1994 WL 159474
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 1994
Docket93-6524
StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.3d 402 (Thomas Ruff, Jr. v. State of South Carolina 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
Thomas Ruff, Jr. v. State of South Carolina Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 23 F.3d 402, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18517, 1994 WL 159474 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

23 F.3d 402
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 RUFF, Jr., Petitioner Appellant,
v.
State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina, Respondents Appellees.

No. 93-6524.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 22, 1994.
Decided April 29, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-91-3261)

Thomas Ruff, Jr., appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, 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. 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Ruff v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-91-3261 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 1993). We deny Ruff's Motion to Amend for Good Cause Shown to Show "Cause" and "Prejudice." 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)
23 F.3d 402, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18517, 1994 WL 159474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-ruff-jr-v-state-of-south-carolina-attorney--ca4-1994.