Filed: Feb. 23, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-12787 FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 05-00770-CV-TWT-1 MICHAEL BERNARD WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHAIRMAN MILTON E. NIX, JR., Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (February 23, 2006) Before TJOF
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-12787 FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 05-00770-CV-TWT-1 MICHAEL BERNARD WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHAIRMAN MILTON E. NIX, JR., Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (February 23, 2006) Before TJOFL..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-12787 FEBRUARY 23, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00770-CV-TWT-1
MICHAEL BERNARD WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHAIRMAN MILTON E. NIX, JR.,
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 23, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this case, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff is a Georgia prison inmate. His complaint concerns his eligibility for
parole and the Board’s refusal to release him on parole. He seeks $650,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages.
In its dispositive order of May 5, 2005, record vol. 1 at tab 3, the district
court analyzed the plaintiff’s claim and found it meritless as a matter of law. The
plaintiff now appeals, challenging the court’s decision. We find no error in the
court’s analysis of his claim or in its application of the law thereto.
AFFIRMED.
2