Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Milne v. US Parole Comm, 99-6081 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6081 Visitors: 33
Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6081 MARSHALL MILNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; EDWARD F. REILLY, JR., Chairman; JASPER R. CLAY, JR., Commissioner; JOHN R. SIMPSON, Commissioner; MICHAEL A. STOVER, General Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-3085-JFM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: Jul
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6081 MARSHALL MILNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; EDWARD F. REILLY, JR., Chairman; JASPER R. CLAY, JR., Commissioner; JOHN R. SIMPSON, Commissioner; MICHAEL A. STOVER, General Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-3085-JFM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Milne, Appellant Pro Se. Wilma A. Lewis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marshall Milne appeals the district court’s order denying re- lief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, seeking reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Milne v. United States Parole Comm’n, No. CA-98-3085-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 14, 1998). We deny Milne’s motion for transfer and 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