John Grady Morris v. United States Parole Commission John T. Hadden, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina

74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38874, 1996 WL 15427
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 1996
Docket95-7356
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1232 (John Grady Morris v. United States Parole Commission John T. Hadden, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Grady Morris v. United States Parole Commission John T. Hadden, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina, 74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38874, 1996 WL 15427 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

74 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

John Grady MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; John T. Hadden, Warden,
Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North
Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7356.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Jan. 17, 1996.

John Grady Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 (1988) petition. 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. Morris v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. CA-95-313-5-HC-F (E.D.N.C. July 31, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F.3d 1232, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38874, 1996 WL 15427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-grady-morris-v-united-states-parole-commissio-ca4-1996.