Filed: Apr. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8525 RICHARD DEAN MEARS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN HAHN, Warden; CALVIN WEAVER, Camp Administrator; ROBERT FLYNN, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-1561-A) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Deci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8525 RICHARD DEAN MEARS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN HAHN, Warden; CALVIN WEAVER, Camp Administrator; ROBERT FLYNN, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-1561-A) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decid..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8525 RICHARD DEAN MEARS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN HAHN, Warden; CALVIN WEAVER, Camp Administrator; ROBERT FLYNN, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-95-1561-A) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Dean Mears, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. 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. Mears v. United States, No. CA-95-1561-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
