Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Small v. Mooneyham, 96-40399 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-40399 Visitors: 122
Filed: Nov. 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40399 Conference Calendar KENNETH M. SMALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DEVERY W. MOONEYHAM, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-C-95-398 - - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kenneth M. Small (#547619) appeals the district court’s order granting Devery Moo
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-40399
                        Conference Calendar



KENNETH M. SMALL,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEVERY W. MOONEYHAM,

                                          Defendant-Appellee.


                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. CA-C-95-398
                        - - - - - - - - - -
                          October 24, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Kenneth M. Small (#547619) appeals the district court’s

order granting Devery Mooneyham’s motion for summary judgment.

Small contends that Mooneyham, a disciplinary hearing captain,

infringed upon his due process rights in finding him guilty of

the charge of disruption of operations.    Because Small has failed

to raise an issue which is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we

AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.     See Sandin v. Conner, 
115 S. Ct. 2293
, 2300 (1995).

     *
       Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
             No.
            - 2 -

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