Filed: Dec. 30, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7063 DAVID L. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-534-JFM) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7063 DAVID L. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-534-JFM) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7063 DAVID L. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-534-JFM) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Armstrong v. Davis, No. CA-97-534-JFM (D. Md. July 15, 1997). 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
