U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1990

Thomas Lee Royster v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

Thomas Lee Royster v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 18, 1990
911 F.2d 724; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056; 1990 WL 112109 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Thomas Lee Royster v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

Opinion

911 F.2d 724
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 90-6308.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 1990.
Decided July 18, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, United States Magistrate. (C/A No. 89-569-R)

Thomas Lee Royster, appellant pro se.

Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Thomas Lee Royster seeks to appeal the magistrate's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.* Our review of the record and the magistrate'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 magistrate. Royster v. Murray, C/A No. 89-569-R (E.D.Va. Mar. 13, 1990). 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.

2

DISMISSED.

*

The magistrate exercised jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.