Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

95-6847 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6847 Visitors: 49
Filed: Aug. 14, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 64 F.3d 655 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Willie BRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bishop L. ROBINSON, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Paul Davis, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission; Richard L. Lanham, Commissioner, Division of Correct
More

64 F.3d 655

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Willie BRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Bishop L. ROBINSON, Secretary, Department of Public Safety
and Correctional Services; Paul Davis, Chairman, Maryland
Parole Commission; Richard L. Lanham, Commissioner,
Division of Correction Headquarters; Melanie C. Pereira,
Deputy Commissioner, Division of Correction Headquarters;
Unknown Agents and Employees of the Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6847.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 1995.
Decided Aug. 14, 1995.

Willie Brice, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion dismissing Appellant's claims regarding his denial of parole and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brice v. Robinson, No. CA-95-1129-S (D.Md. May 3, 1995). To the extent that Appellant attempts to appeal the district court's order dismissing his final claim without prejudice, that order is not appealable. Domino Sugar Co. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir.1993). Consequently, that portion of the appeal is dismissed.* 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

*

We also deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel

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