Ross v. Woodard

683 F.2d 846, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17372
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 16, 1982
Docket82-6134
StatusPublished

This text of 683 F.2d 846 (Ross v. Woodard) 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
Ross v. Woodard, 683 F.2d 846, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17372 (4th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

683 F.2d 846

Daniel ROSS, Appellant,
v.
James C. WOODARD, Chairman, N. C. Parole Comm.; Jane G.
Greenlee, Commissioner; Joy J. Johnson, Commissioner; Rae H.
McNamara, Commissioner; Commissioner Oxendine; Sam Boyd,
Case Analyst, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees.

No. 82-6134.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1982.
Decided July 16, 1982.

Thomas F. Loflin, III, Shirley L. Fulton, Durham, N. C., for appellant.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Jacob L. Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., on brief, for appellees.

Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Presently serving a life sentence in North Carolina for first degree murder and failing in his continuing endeavors to have the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment construed as requiring a prisoner's access to his files when he is considered for parole, Daniel Ross again appeals. Assuming arguendo that our latest pronouncement on this point does not bar the instant action by the doctrine of res judicata, see Ross v. Byrd, No. 78-6449 (4th Cir. July 24, 1980) (unpublished), we state unequivocally that Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), does not require the State to provide a potential parolee with access to his prison files. Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 800 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1003, 98 S.Ct. 1659, 56 L.Ed.2d 92 (1978).

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, concurring:

In Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 800 (4th Cir. 1978) (en banc), the court held-contrary to the conclusion reached by the panel, 569 F.2d at 794-95-that a prisoner was not entitled to have access to his files. In Greenholtz v. Nebraska, 442 U.S. 1, 15 n.7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2108 n.7, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), the Court noted that the question of access to files had not been raised. Consequently, I conclude that the en banc decision of Franklin v. Shields dictates affirmance of this appeal.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 F.2d 846, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-woodard-ca4-1982.