Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Alex Sandusky Bristol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court correctly found that Bristol's claims were precluded by the final judgment entered on the same claims in prior state court proceedings. The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of the district court, which found that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred Bristol's federal suit.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-05-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 904 F.2d 699 Docket: 89-7223

    Original Title

    Alex Sandusky Bristol v. Bishop Robinson, Secretary, Public Safety & Correctional Services Arnold J. Hopkins, Commissioner Ralph W. Packard, Warden Dave Green, Classification Supervisor II Brian Irwin, Classification Supervisor I Mrs. Walker, Classification Counselor, 904 F.2d 699, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Alex Sandusky Bristol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court correctly found that Bristol's claims were precluded by the final judgment entered on the same claims in prior state court proceedings. The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of the district court, which found that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred Bristol's federal suit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Alex Sandusky Bristol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court correctly found that Bristol's claims were precluded by the final judgment entered on the same claims in prior state court proceedings. The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of the district court, which found that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred Bristol's federal suit.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    904 F.

    2d 699
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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 Fourth
    Circuit.
    Alex Sandusky BRISTOL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Bishop ROBINSON, Secretary, Public Safety & Correctional
    Services; ARNOLD J. HOPKINS, Commissioner; RALPH W.
    PACKARD, Warden; DAVE GREEN, Classification
    Supervisor II;
    BRIAN IRWIN, Classification Supervisor I; MRS. WALKER,
    Classification Counselor, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 89-7223.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Jan. 26, 1990.
    Decided: May 29, 1990.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 871361).
    Alex Sandusky Bristol, appellant pro se.
    John Joseph Curran, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Maryland,
    Baltimore, Md., for appellees.
    D.Md.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL, K.K. HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit
    Judges.

    PER CURIAM:

    Alex Sandusky Bristol appeals from the district court's order denying relief
    under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's
    opinion discloses that the district court correctly found Bristol's claims
    precluded by the final judgment entered on the same claims in state court.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the district court's reasoning concerning claim
    preclusion. Bristol v. Robinson, C/A No. 87-1361 (D.Md. Oct. 24, 1989).* 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

    The district court's opinion of October 24, 1989, incorporated its decision of
    April 6, 1988, as an alternative ground for dismissal. Our affirmance rests
    solely on the district court's finding of claim preclusion

    You might also like