Case ID: f-appx_378/html/0374-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Richland County Judicial Center; Jean H. Toal; Henry F. Floyd, Judge; H.B. Richardson; South Carolina Department of Corrections; H.M. Herlong, Judge; Robert S. Carr; Casey Manning; J.R. Barker; NFN McBride; 1040 Defendants; Barack Obama, President; Seneca Daily Journal And Messenger; Anderson Independent News; Greenville News; The State Newspaper; The Post and Courier; New York Times; Tigertown Observer; Knight Ridder, Incorporated; United States of America; Central Intelligence Agency; Federal Bureau of Investiga tion; Jon Ozmint, Director; Mark Sanford, Governor; Solicitor General; Civil Rights Lawyers, USDOJ; A.W. Woodhous; E. Stephens; Bill Clinton; George W. Bush; United States Supreme Court; Wis Television 10, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-6050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 1, 2010.
    Decided: May 18, 2010.
    Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rochester v. South Carolina, No. 2:09-cv-03148-HMH-SC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2009). 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. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

AFFIRMED.