Thomas A. Dent v. Parker Evatt, Comm'r, South Carolina Dep't of Corr. T. Travis Medlock, Attorney Gen. of South Carolina, 10 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas A. Dent v. Parker Evatt, Comm'r, South Carolina Dep't of Corr. T. Travis Medlock, Attorney Gen. of South Carolina, 10 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Kasparov, Pte Ltd. v. Zacherl
E.D.N.C. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See F.D.LC. v. Danzig, 10 F.3d 806 , 1993 WL 478842, at *2 (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Vick v. Wong
E.D. Va. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See FDIC v. Danzig, 10 F.3d 806 , 1993 WL 478842, at *2 (4th Cir.1993) (unpublished table decision) (‘Where, as here, a court is ruling upon a plaintiff’s application for a default judgment, it properly treats the defendant’s opposition as a motion to set aside the entry of default, which is assessed under Rule 55(c)’s good cause standard.”) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir.1981) (holding that “in considering the appellants’ opposition to the motion for a default judgment, [it is proper] to apply the Rule 55(c) standard for setting aside the entry of a default”…
discussed Cited "see" Watkiss & Saperstein v. Williams (2×)
Utah · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cianbro Corp. v. Jeffcoat & Martin, 804 F.Supp. 784, 789 (D.S.C.1992), aff'd, 10 F.3d 806 (4th Cir.1993); Smith v. Lewis, 13 Cal.3d 349 , 118 Cal.Rptr. 621, 627 , 530 P.2d 589, 595 (1975), overruled on other grounds, In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838 , 126 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 641 n. 14, 544 P.2d 561 , 569 n. 14 (1976); Meir v. Kirk, Pinkerton, McClelland, Savary & Carr, 561 So.2d 399, 402 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990); Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue v. American Envirecycle, Inc., 217 Ga.App. 80 , 456 S.E.2d 264, 267 (1995); Lewis v. Desmond, 187 A.D.2d 797 , 589 N.Y.S.2d 678, 679 (1992); Quality Inn…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bell Microproducts, Inc. v. Global-Insync, Inc.
E.D. Va. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Lyles v. Popkin, 36 F.3d 1093 , 1994 WL 525824 (4th Cir.1994); see also Brooks v. Owensby, 10 F.3d 806 , 1993 WL 483135 (4th Cir.1993) (unpublished opinion) (certification *943 warranted only in exceptional cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas A. Dent
v.
Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina
93-6899.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 18, 1993.
10 F.3d 806
Unpublished

10 F.3d 806

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.
Thomas A. DENT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Parker EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of
Corrections; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General
of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-6899.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 25, 1993.
Decided: November 18, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Thomas A. Dent, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, for Appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Dent v. Evatt, No. CA93-280 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 1993). 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.

DISMISSED