Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ballard v. Glendening, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Iszard Ballard, Jr. v. Parris N. Glendening et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief to Ballard on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-8585

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Iszard Ballard, Jr. v. Parris N. Glendening et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief to Ballard on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Ballard v. Glendening, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Iszard Ballard, Jr. v. Parris N. Glendening et al. affirming the district court's denial of relief to Ballard on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-8585

    ISZARD BALLARD, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PARRIS N. GLENDENING; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.;
    BISHOP L. ROBINSON; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.;
    EARL BESHEARS; RALPH LOGAN,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-95-1630-JFM)
    Submitted:

    May 16, 1996

    Decided:

    June 3, 1996

    Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Iszard Ballard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 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
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) 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. Ballard v. Glendening, No. CA-95-1630-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 20,
    1995). 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

    You might also like