Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

88-7259 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-7259 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 17, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 869 F.2d 594 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Frank L. MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Purcell Hill-Bey, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; William D. Schafer; Bishop L. Robinson; Arnold Hopkins, Commissioner, Division of Correction; Present Chairman of
More

869 F.2d 594
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Frank L. MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Purcell Hill-Bey, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; William D. Schafer; Bishop L. Robinson;
Arnold Hopkins, Commissioner, Division of Correction;
Present Chairman of the Parole Commission; Phillip G.
Dantes, Former Chairman of the Parole Commission; William
Kunckle, Former Chairman of the Maryland Commission; John
Doe, Defendants of the Maryland Parole Commission;
Wolfgang, Parole Commissioner; Traurig, Parole
Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.
Purcell HILL-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Frank L. Moody, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; William D. Schafer; Bishop L. Robinson;
Arnold Hopkins, Commissioner, Division of Correction;
Present Chairman of the Parole Commission; Phillip G.
Dantes, Former Chairman of the Parole Commission; William
Kunckle, Former Chairman of the Maryland Commission; John
Doe, Defendants of the Maryland Parole Commission; Parole
Commissioner Wolfgang; Parole Commissioner Traurig,
Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 88-7259, 88-7291.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 27, 1988.
Decided: Feb. 17, 1989.

Frank L. Moody and Purcell Hill-Bey, appellants pro se.

Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Richard M. Kastendieck (Office of the Attorney General of Maryland), for appellees.

Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Frank L. Moody and Purcell Hill-Bey appeal from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moody v. State of Maryland, Hill-Bey v. State of Maryland, C/A No. 88-1472-R (D.Md. Sept. 15, 1988). We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

2

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer