Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20706 Summary Calendar _ WILLIE D. ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JACK KYLE Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-94-2140 - - - - - - - - - - February 8, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20706 Summary Calendar _ WILLIE D. ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JACK KYLE Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-94-2140 - - - - - - - - - - February 8, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* A..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20706
Summary Calendar
__________________
WILLIE D. ARMSTEAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JACK KYLE
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-94-2140
- - - - - - - - - -
February 8, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armstead appeals from the district court's order granting
the defendants' motion for summary judgment in his civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the defendants
violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and the Ex
Post Facto Clause in calculating his parole eligibility and his
parole review date. We have reviewed the record and the district
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-20706
-2-
court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons given by the district court.
AFFIRMED.