Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Walter Steve Wilson, Jr. v. G.L. Bass, Warden Edward W. Murray L. White, 70 F.3d 1264, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It affirms the district court's denial of a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. While the appeals court finds no reversible error, it modifies the district court's order to reflect that the petition should have been disposed of on summary judgment grounds since matters outside the pleadings were considered, rather than dismissed. The appeals court declines to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-12-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 70 F.3d 1264 Docket: 95-6744

    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 a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It affirms the district court's denial of a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. While the appeals court finds no reversible error, it modifies the district court's order to reflect that the petition should have been disposed of on summary judgment grounds since matters outside the pleadings were considered, rather than dismissed. The appeals court declines to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Walter Steve Wilson, Jr. v. G.L. Bass, Warden Edward W. Murray L. White, 70 F.3d 1264, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It affirms the district court's denial of a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. While the appeals court finds no reversible error, it modifies the district court's order to reflect that the petition should have been disposed of on summary judgment grounds since matters outside the pleadings were considered, rather than dismissed. The appeals court declines to hold oral arguments as the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    70 F.

    3d 1264

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.
    Walter Steve WILSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    G.L. BASS, Warden; Edward W. Murray; L. White,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 95-6744.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Nov. 21, 1995.
    Decided: Dec. 5, 1995.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-93-754-AM)
    Walter Steve Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Cauthorne Daniel,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant a certificate
    of probable cause to appeal and affirm the appeal on the reasoning of the
    district court. Wilson v. Bass, No. CA-93-754-AM (E.D.Va. May 2, 1995). We,

    however, modify the district court's order to reflect that, because the court
    considered matters outside of the pleadings, it should have disposed of the
    petition on summary grounds, rather than dismiss it. See Herbert v. Saffell, 877
    F.2d 267, 270 (4th Cir.1989). 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

    AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

    You might also like