Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

Charles E. Brown v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of The State of South Carolina, 62 F.3d 1414, 4th Cir. (1995)

This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from August 10, 1995. It involves an appeal by Charles E. Brown of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Brown's petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

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
21 views2 pages

Charles E. Brown v. State of South Carolina T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of The State of South Carolina, 62 F.3d 1414, 4th Cir. (1995)

This document is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from August 10, 1995. It involves an appeal by Charles E. Brown of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Brown's petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

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

62 F.

3d 1414

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of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth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.
Charles E. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 94-7361.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Aug. 10, 1995.
Submitted: July 25, 1995
Decided: August 10, 1995

Charles E. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Brown v. South Carolina, No. CA-93-2558-3-OBD (D.S.C. Oct. 6, 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.

AFFIRMED

You might also like