Charles Thomas Locklear v. Edward W. Murray, Dir. of the Virginia Dep't of Corr., 888 F.2d 1386 (4th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles Thomas Locklear v. Edward W. Murray, Dir. of the Virginia Dep't of Corr., 888 F.2d 1386 (4th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nicholas Lennear v. Eric Wilson (ca4, 2019-08-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nicholas Lennear v. Eric Wilson
4th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
In particular, the Court held that Hill’s “some evidence” standard addresses the “evidentiary requirements of due process” but “in no way abrogate[s] the due process requirements enunciated in Wolff.” Id. at 648 ; see also Parrish v. Dodrill, 888 F.2d 1386 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished) (noting that the court evaluates the record evidence under Hill’s “some evidence” standard “as to [the inmate’s] claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence against him” (emphasis added)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Thomas Locklear
v.
Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
87-7668.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 10, 1989.
888 F.2d 1386
Unpublished

888 F.2d 1386
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 87-7668.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 30, 1989.
Decided Oct. 10, 1989.

Charles Thomas Locklear, appellant pro se.

Frank S. Ferguson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN, CHAPMAN, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Charles Thomas Locklear seeks to appeal the district court's dismissal of his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate reveals that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Locklear v. Murray, C/A No. 86-392-N (E.D.Va. July 17, 1987).[*] We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the Court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

2

DISMISSED.

*

We also find that Locklear's contention that his attorney was ineffective for failing to present fully an insanity defense is without merit