Julian Rochester v. State of South Carolina, No. 10-6050 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6050 JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RICHLAND COUNTY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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm Rochester for v. Dec. 8, 2009). the South reasons Carolina, stated No. by the We have Accordingly, district court. 2:09-cv-03148-HMH-SC (D.S.C. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the process. court and argument would not aid the decisional The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.