Scribd
Upload
27 views2 pages

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Milton McCray filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that were consolidated in district court. The district court denied relief on both claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on the § 1983 claim, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit also denied a certificate of probable cause and dismissed McCray's appeal of the § 2254 petition, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit declined to hold oral arguments, finding the issues adequately briefed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
27 views2 pages

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Milton McCray filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that were consolidated in district court. The district court denied relief on both claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on the § 1983 claim, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit also denied a certificate of probable cause and dismissed McCray's appeal of the § 2254 petition, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit declined to hold oral arguments, finding the issues adequately briefed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

68 F.

3d 461

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of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth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.
Milton McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard LANHAM, Sr., Commissioner; Jodie Baker,
Commitment
Auditor; Richard B. Rosenblatt, Assistant
Attorney General; Marlene Cougar,
Commitment Supervisor,
Defendants-Appellees.
Milton McCRAY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Warden SMITH; Attorney General of the State of Maryland;
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 95-7172.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted: September 21, 1995.
Decided: October 13, 1995.

Milton McCray, Appellant Pro Se.


Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint and his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition, which
were consolidated in the district court. We have reviewed the record and the
district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 95-

7172, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCray v. Lanham, No.
CA-95-1830-MJG (D.Md. July 17, 1995). In No. 95-7229, we deny a certificate
of probable cause and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
McCray v. Smith, No. CA-95-1906-MJG (D.Md. July 17, 1995). 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.

You might also like