Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

86-3937 (1987)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 86-3937 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 15, 1987
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 818 F.2d 866 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Vernon E. RODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gale B. WELLER; Thomas E. Ray; Virgil L. Guiner; Howard E. Hall; M. Kirby Roberts, Jr.; Stephen E. Weithman; Richard F. Celeste; Michael Piacention; Robert Nemo; Willi
More

818 F.2d 866

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Vernon E. RODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Gale B. WELLER; Thomas E. Ray; Virgil L. Guiner; Howard
E. Hall; M. Kirby Roberts, Jr.; Stephen E. Weithman;
Richard F. Celeste; Michael Piacention; Robert Nemo;
William M. Sterritt; John L. Spiegel; Henry E. Shaw, Jr.;
Robert E. Henderson; Norman J. Putman; William F. McKee;
John R. Hoffman; John R. Milligan; Ira G. Turpin; Robert
M. Duncan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-3937.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 15, 1987.

Before KEITH, KENNEDY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of petitioner's appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1615(a). The matter has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the certified record and the parties' briefs, the panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2

Petitioner alleged that his state conviction for rape is procedurally and substantively unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d).

3

Upon consideration, this Court affirms the district court's judgment for reasons stated in its order of dismissal dated May 27, 1986. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

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