Filed: Jul. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1466 JACK D. LIFFITON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROL PAVILACK GETTY; JASPER CLAY, JR.; PAROLE EXAMINER TENNY; PAROLE EXAMINER LINDSEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1273-JFM) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1466 JACK D. LIFFITON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROL PAVILACK GETTY; JASPER CLAY, JR.; PAROLE EXAMINER TENNY; PAROLE EXAMINER LINDSEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1273-JFM) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1466
JACK D. LIFFITON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CAROL PAVILACK GETTY; JASPER CLAY, JR.; PAROLE
EXAMINER TENNY; PAROLE EXAMINER LINDSEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-1273-JFM)
Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 10, 1996
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jack D. Liffiton, Appellant Pro Se. Kaye A. Allison, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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. Liffiton v. Getty, No. CA-95-1273-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 28,
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
2