Julian Edward Rochester v. State of South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6050
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 INVESTIGATION; 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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cv-03148-HMH-RSC)
Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: May 18, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --