Todd v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections Compliance Office at Headquarters

60 F.3d 825, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24952, 1995 WL 406595
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 11, 1995
Docket94-6364
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 825 (Todd v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections Compliance Office at Headquarters) 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
Todd v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections Compliance Office at Headquarters, 60 F.3d 825, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24952, 1995 WL 406595 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

60 F.3d 825
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Johnnie W. TODD, a/k/a Christopher S. Kollyns, a/k/a John W.
Todd, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMPLIANCE OFFICE
AT HEADQUARTERS; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 94-6364.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 1995.
Decided July 11, 1995.

Johnnie W. Todd, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WILKINSON, HAMILTON, 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. Todd v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections Compliance Office at Headquarters, No. CA-93-1127-3-17-B (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 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)
60 F.3d 825, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24952, 1995 WL 406595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todd-v-south-carolina-dept-of-corrections-compliance-office-at-ca4-1995.