Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brantner v. Nuth, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert Lewis Brantner v. Eugene M. Nuth and the Attorney General of Maryland. The court dismissed Brantner's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In reviewing the record, the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court thus denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-09-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6834

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert Lewis Brantner v. Eugene M. Nuth and the Attorney General of Maryland. The court dismissed Brantner's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In reviewing the record, the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court thus denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    Brantner v. Nuth, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Robert Lewis Brantner v. Eugene M. Nuth and the Attorney General of Maryland. The court dismissed Brantner's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In reviewing the record, the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation. The appeals court thus denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6834

    ROBERT LEWIS BRANTNER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    EUGENE M. NUTH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-9675)
    Submitted:

    September 11, 1997

    Decided:

    September 23, 1997

    Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Lewis Brantner, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1994) (current
    version at 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have
    reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
    Brantner v. Nuth, No. CA-96-75 (D. Md. May 14, 1997). See Lindh v.
    Murphy, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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

    You might also like