UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7038
JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
BERNARD MCKIE, Warden of Kirkland Correctional Institution;
WILLIAM R. BYARS, Director of SCDC; HENRY M. HERLONG, JR.;
US MARSHALS; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the
United States; HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District
Judge; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; MD MCCALL, Warden of Perry
Correctional Institution; NIKKI HALEY, Governor of South
Carolina; ALLEN WILSON, Attorney General of South Carolina;
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON
SERVICES; J. PAGE; A. NEAL, Attorney; H. A. HINTON,
Director Of Parole Hearings; S B GLOVER, Director of
SCDPPPS; FIVE PAROLE JUDGES; 212 DEFENDANTS; 29 FEDERAL
FOURTH CIRCUIT JUDGES; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BEVERLY
WHITFIELD, Clerk of Court; R L MCINTOSH, Judge; OCONEE
COUNTY; 1600 DEFENDANTS; ANDERSON COUNTY; JEANETTE W.
MCBRIDE, Clerk of Court for Richland County; 45 ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00797-JMC)
Submitted: January 25, 2012 Decided: February 9, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing this action raising various civil rights, habeas
corpus and mandamus claims. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated
by the district court. Rochester v. McKie, No. 8:11-cv-00797-
JMC (D.S.C. July 8, 2011). We deny the motions for appointment
of counsel, to grant appeal, for writ of prohibition, and to
compel. 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
3