Brown v. Moore
Summary of the case Brown v. Moore
James O. Brown appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, which accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, and found no reversible error. The court affirmed the district court's decision without oral argument.
Key Issues of the case Brown v. Moore
- Denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
- Review of district court's decision
Key Facts of the case Brown v. Moore
- James O. Brown filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
- The district court denied relief on the petition
Decision of the case Brown v. Moore
Affirmed
Opinions
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7880
JAMES O. BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of Department of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-95-755-6-22AK)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James O. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Moore, No. CA-95-755-6-22AK (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 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.
AFFIRMED
2