Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Mahapatra v. Bradburn, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Appellants Saradindu Mahapatra and Alok Kumar on their claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied the Appellants' motion for a jury trial.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Mahapatra v. Bradburn, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Appellants Saradindu Mahapatra and Alok Kumar on their claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied the Appellants' motion for a jury trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-1718

    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 Appellants Saradindu Mahapatra and Alok Kumar on their claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied the Appellants' motion for a jury trial.

    Copyright:

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

    Mahapatra v. Bradburn, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Appellants Saradindu Mahapatra and Alok Kumar on their claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It also denied the Appellants' motion for a jury trial.

    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. 96-1718

    SARADINDU MAHAPATRA; ALOK KUMAR,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    R. BRADBURN, Baltimore County Police; G.
    DARRELL RUSSELL, Baltimore County District
    Court Judge,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-961168-L)
    Submitted:

    November 7, 1996

    Decided:

    November 18, 1996

    Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Saradindu Mahapatra, Alok Kumar, Appellants Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on
    their claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) and
    the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. 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 and deny
    Appellants' motion for a jury trial. Mahapatra v. Bradburn, No. CA96-1168-L (D. Md. May 1, 1996). 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