Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Davis, 95-7193 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7193 Visitors: 42
Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7193 DAVID A. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL J. DAVIS, Parole Chairman; RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Corrections; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; THOMAS PASSARO, Facility Administrator; DAYENA CORCORAN, Acting Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7193 DAVID A. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL J. DAVIS, Parole Chairman; RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Corrections; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; THOMAS PASSARO, Facility Administrator; DAYENA CORCORAN, Acting Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-95-870-S) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor- ney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his action which was styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition, but construed by the district court as a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Davis, No. CA-95-870-S (D. Md. July 18, 1995). 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 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