Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Staton v. Reno, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Ben Franklin Staton filed a complaint against Janet Reno, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Bureau of Investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the district court construed as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied relief and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-07-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-6513

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ben Franklin Staton filed a complaint against Janet Reno, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Bureau of Investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the district court construed as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied relief and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit 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
    7 views2 pages

    Staton v. Reno, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ben Franklin Staton filed a complaint against Janet Reno, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Bureau of Investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the district court construed as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied relief and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. The Fourth Circuit 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
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-6513

    BEN FRANKLIN STATON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JANET RENO; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
    JUSTICE; U.S. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

    OF
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-96-296-AM)
    Submitted:

    June 20, 1996

    Decided:

    July 9, 1996

    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ben Franklin Staton, 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 complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988), but
    construed by the district court as a habeas corpus petition under
    28 U.S.C. 2254 (1988). 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. Staton v. Reno,
    No. CA-96-296-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 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