Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Iszard Ballard Jr. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied relief on Ballard's complaint and the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court relied on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 11, 1995 opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7780

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Iszard Ballard Jr. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied relief on Ballard's complaint and the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court relied on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 11, 1995 opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining 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
    1 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Iszard Ballard Jr. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied relief on Ballard's complaint and the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court relied on the reasoning provided by the district court in its October 11, 1995 opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining 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
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7780

    ISZARD BALLARD, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    PARRIS N. GLENDENING; SAUNDRA E. BANKS; NORMAN
    N. YANKELLOW; JOSEPH J. CURRAN,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-95-2770-JFM)
    Submitted:

    February 7, 1996

    Decided:

    February 26, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Iszard Ballard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    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-95-2770-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 11,
    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