Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dove v. Davis, 97-6342 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6342 Visitors: 50
Filed: Sep. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6342 ARTHUR CARL DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL J. DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Division of Correction; MELANIE C. PEREIRA, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Correction; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland Correc- tional Pre-Release System; ALLEN FEIKEN, Hearing Officer; Maryland Parole Commission; FRANK PAPPAS, Commissioner, Maryland Parole Commission, Defendants - Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6342 ARTHUR CARL DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL J. DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Division of Correction; MELANIE C. PEREIRA, Deputy Commissioner, Division of Correction; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland Correc- tional Pre-Release System; ALLEN FEIKEN, Hearing Officer; Maryland Parole Commission; FRANK PAPPAS, Commissioner, Maryland Parole Commission, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2145-AW) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Carl Dove, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dove v. Davis, No. CA-96-2145-AW (D. Md. Oct. 28, 1996; Nov. 22, 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