Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nathaniel Johnson, Jr. v. Chairman Paul Davis (In His Individual Capacity) Maryland Parole Commission, 90-7123 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-7123 Visitors: 65
Filed: Nov. 19, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 918 F.2d 173 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Nathaniel JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chairman Paul DAVIS (in his individual capacity) Maryland Parole Commission, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-7123. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
More

918 F.2d 173
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Nathaniel JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Chairman Paul DAVIS (in his individual capacity) Maryland
Parole Commission, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-7123.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 19, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-89-2589-H)

Nathaniel Johnson, Jr., appellant pro se.

George Albert Eichhorn, III, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Nathaniel Johnson, Jr. appeals 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. Johnson v. Davis, CA-89-2589-H (D.Md. Aug. 30, 1990). 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.

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