Marvin Nathaniel Randolph v. E.W. Murray, Dir., 52 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Marvin Nathaniel Randolph v. E.W. Murray, Dir., 52 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Equal Empl Opportunity Cmsn v. Simbaki, Limited, e (ca5, 2014-09-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Equal Empl Opportunity Cmsn v. Simbaki, Limited, e
5th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Onan v. Cnty. of Roanoke, 52 F.3d 321, at *2 (4th Cir. 1995).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Simbaki, Ltd.
5th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Onan v. Cnty. of Roanoke, 52 F.3d 321, at *2 (4th Cir.1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marvin Nathaniel Randolph
v.
E.W. Murray, Director
94-7140.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 19, 1995.
52 F.3d 321
Published

52 F.3d 321
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Marvin Nathaniel RANDOLPH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
E.W. MURRAY, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-7140.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 7, 1995.
Decided: April 19, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-604-R)

Marvin Nathaniel Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine P. Baldwin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

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 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. Randolph v. Murray, No. CA-93-604-R (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 1994). 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