Case Name: James Guy ARNOLD, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles MADES, Sheriff; Van Evans, Lieutenant, Warden; The State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees; James Guy Arnold, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of Maryland; M. Kenneth Long, Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-28
Citations: 30 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: Nos. 01-7733, 01-7734
Parties: James Guy ARNOLD, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles MADES, Sheriff; Van Evans, Lieutenant, Warden; The State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees. James Guy Arnold, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of Maryland; M. Kenneth Long, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 138–138

Head Matter:
James Guy ARNOLD, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles MADES, Sheriff; Van Evans, Lieutenant, Warden; The State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees. James Guy Arnold, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of Maryland; M. Kenneth Long, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 01-7733, 01-7734.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2002.
Decided Feb. 28, 2002.
James Guy Arnold, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Guy Arnold appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), 1443 (1994), and dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994) after construing it as a petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Arnold's petitions. See Arnold v. Mades, No. CA-01-2710 (D.Md. Sept. 18, 2001); Arnold v. Maryland, No. CA-01-2711 (D.Md. Sept. 17, 2001). We deny Arnold's motions for a writ of prohibition, for a writ of mandamus, for a writ of error coram nobis, to file an ex parte brief, for bail and return of property, for electronic records and transcripts, for immediate discharge, for a stay of his state court criminal prosecutions, for an expedited hearing, for plenary review, for an evidentiary hearing and formal briefing order, and for certificates of appealability. 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.
AFFIRMED.