Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Herbert Henderson, Sr. v. J. Atherton L. Jones F. Brooks United States Parole Commission, 90-7015 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-7015 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jul. 10, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 904 F.2d 700 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Herbert HENDERSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. ATHERTON; L. Jones; F. Brooks; United States Parole Commission, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-7015. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitte
More

904 F.2d 700
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Herbert HENDERSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. ATHERTON; L. Jones; F. Brooks; United States Parole
Commission, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-7015.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 7, 1990.
Decided: May 23, 1990.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (C/A No. 89-94-R).

Herbert Henderson, Sr., appellant pro se.

Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Herbert Henderson, Sr. appeals from the district court's order dismissing this suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henderson v. Atherton, C/A No. 89-94-R (E.D.Va. Jan. 26, 1990). 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

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