U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1991

David Rivers v. State of South Carolina, T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

David Rivers v. State of South Carolina, T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided April 19, 1991
930 F.2d 913; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13367; 1991 WL 58443 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

David Rivers v. State of South Carolina, T. Travis Medlock, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

Opinion

930 F.2d 913
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David RIVERS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, T. Travis Medlock, The Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 90-7506.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 26, 1991.
Decided April 19, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-89-573-3)

David Rivers, appellant pro se.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, S.C., for appellees.

D.S.C.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

David Rivers seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation 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. Rivers v. South Carolina, CA-89-573-3 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 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.

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