No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Graham P. BARNHART, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
v.
E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
17195.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jan 12, 1967.
Graham P. Barnhart, in pro. per., William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Leo J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.
Weick, Phillips, Celebrezze.
Published
PER CURIAM.
This is a habeas corpus case. The facts are stated in some detail in Barn-hart v. Maxwell, 2 Ohio St.2d 308, 208 N.E.2d 752.
The district court denied the writ without a hearing, on the ground that the petitioner alleged no facts or details to indicate in what manner he contends he is restrained illegally of his liberty. In the absence of such allegations, an evi-dentiary hearing is not required. Reams v. Davis, 333 F.2d 430 (C.A. 6); Loum v. Underwood, 262 F.2d 866 (C.A. 6).
Affirmed.