William Michael McAdams v. William C. Duncil, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center

Fourth Circuit

William Michael McAdams v. William C. Duncil, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center

37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34850, 1994 WL 557094

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 1994

Docket94-6701

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1494 (William Michael McAdams v. William C. Duncil, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center) 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

William Michael McAdams v. William C. Duncil, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, 37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34850, 1994 WL 557094 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

37 F.3d 1494
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

William Michael MCADAMS, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
William C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center,
Respondent Appellee.

No. 94-6701.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 4, 1994.
Decided Oct. 12, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-176)

William Michael McAdams, Appellant Pro Se.

Stephen Raymond Van Camp, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, WVA, for Appellee.

S.D.W.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

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. McAdams v. Duncil, No. CA-94-176 (S.D.W. Va. June 8, 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. Finally, because no oral assignment is necessary in this case, we deny Appellant's "Motion to Require Petitioner(s) to be Presented Properly Attired and Free of Restraints."

DISMISSED

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

37 F.3d 1494
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.

William Michael MCADAMS, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
William C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center,
Respondent Appellee.

No. 94-6701.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 4, 1994.
Decided Oct. 12, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-176)

William Michael McAdams, Appellant Pro Se.

Stephen Raymond Van Camp, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, WVA, for Appellee.

S.D.W.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

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. McAdams v. Duncil, No. CA-94-176 (S.D.W. Va. June 8, 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. Finally, because no oral assignment is necessary in this case, we deny Appellant's "Motion to Require Petitioner(s) to be Presented Properly Attired and Free of Restraints."

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34850, 1994 WL 557094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-michael-mcadams-v-william-c-duncil-warden--ca4-1994.