Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Liffiton v. Getty, 96-1466 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1466 Visitors: 3
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1466 JACK D. LIFFITON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROL PAVILACK GETTY; JASPER CLAY, JR.;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
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                             UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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