Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Duplessis v. INS, 96-1549 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1549 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1549 BERNARD DUPLESSIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of Prisons; JOHN HAHN, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-105-AM) Submitted: September 30, 1996 Decided: October 21, 1996 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1549 BERNARD DUPLESSIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of Prisons; JOHN HAHN, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-105-AM) Submitted: September 30, 1996 Decided: October 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Duplessis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 motion to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether he is deportable or remove the detainer it placed upon him. 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. Duplessis v. INS, No. CA-96-105-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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