The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Sherlocke Evan Francis Holmes v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Sherlocke Evan Francis Holmes v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent

88-66710 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 852 F.2d 565 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 state...
  • PER CURIAM:
  • DISMISSED.

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 852 F.2d 565 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 state...
  • PER CURIAM:
  • DISMISSED.

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

852 F.2d 565
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Sherlocke Evan Francis HOLMES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent- Appellee.

No. 88-6671.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 1988.
Decided: July 21, 1988.

Sherlocke Evan Francis Holmes, appellant pro se.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Sherlocke Evan F. Holmes, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the magistrate's denial of his motion for bail pending the disposition of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

2

The decisions of a magistrate may not be appealed directly to this Court unless the parties have consented to have a magistrate conduct all proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1). Otherwise, if a party is dissatisfied with the magistrate's ruling, the proper procedure is to appeal to the district court. Gleason v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 777 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir.1985); Geaney v. Carlson, 776 F.2d 140, 140 (7th Cir.1985); Ambrose v. Welch, 729 F.2d 1084, 1085 (6th Cir.1984); Trufant v. Autocon, Inc., 729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir.1984); Alaniz v. California Processors, Inc., 690 F.2d 717, 720 (9th Cir.1982).

3

As there is no evidence that the parties in this case are proceeding under Sec. 636(c)(1), the magistrate's order is not appealable to this Court. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

4

DISMISSED.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap