Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brock v. Pearson, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals by Robert Lee Brock of orders by a magistrate judge denying relief on Brock's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and magistrate judge's opinion and found no reversible error. As a result, the court denied Brock's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed both appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the magistrate judge. The court also denied several motions filed by Brock.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7305

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes two appeals by Robert Lee Brock of orders by a magistrate judge denying relief on Brock's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and magistrate judge's opinion and found no reversible error. As a result, the court denied Brock's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed both appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the magistrate judge. The court also denied several motions filed by Brock.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views3 pages

    Brock v. Pearson, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals by Robert Lee Brock of orders by a magistrate judge denying relief on Brock's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and magistrate judge's opinion and found no reversible error. As a result, the court denied Brock's request for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed both appeals, agreeing with the reasoning of the magistrate judge. The court also denied several motions filed by Brock.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7305

    ROBERT LEE BROCK,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    EDDIE PEARSON; WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center,
    Respondents - Appellees,
    and
    RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER;
    ROBERTSON,

    THOMAS

    WOODS;

    RAYMOND
    Respondents.

    No. 95-7671

    ROBERT LEE BROCK,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    EDDIE PEARSON; WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center,
    Respondents - Appellees,

    and
    RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER;
    ROBERTSON,

    THOMAS

    WOODS;

    RAYMOND
    Respondents.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-95-247-R, CA-95-326-R)
    Submitted:

    March 21, 1996

    Decided:

    April 2, 1996

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant
    Attorney General, Rita Marie Sampson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders1
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1988) petition and denying
    reconsideration. 2 We have reviewed the record and the magistrate
    judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeals
    on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Brock v. Pearson, Nos.
    CA-95-247-R; CA-95-326-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 16, 1995; Sept. 15, 1995).
    We deny Brock's motions for immediate relief, to remand, and for
    deconsolidation. 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

    The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction


    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (1988).
    2

    The magistrate judge found the reconsideration motion untimely. We find that it was meritless and affirm the order denying
    it on that basis.
    3

    You might also like