Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bernard Duplessis v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons John Hahn, Warden, 96-1549 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1549 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 99 F.3d 1129 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Bernard DUPLESSIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons; John Hahn, Warden, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-1549. United States Court o
More

99 F.3d 1129

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Bernard DUPLESSIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; United States
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons;
John Hahn, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-1549.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 1996.
Decided: Oct. 21, 1996.

Bernard Duplessis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether he is deportable or remove the detainer it placed upon him. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Duplessis v. INS, No. CA-96-105-AM (E.D.Va. Mar. 26, 1996). 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.

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