Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary

Fifth Circuit

Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary

488 F.2d 977, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10357

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1974

Docket73-3427

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 488 F.2d 977 (Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, 488 F.2d 977, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10357 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a damage suit, grounded on the Civil Rights Act and diversity jurisdiction, filed by a federal prisoner and his wife. 1 The appellants *978 sued the warden of the institution where the husband is confined, complaining that the warden has denied marital visitations to the appellants. The district court stated reasons for its ruling in a comprehensive memorandum opinion', which is reported as Polakoff v. Henderson, N.D.Ga.1973, 370 F.Supp. 690. We affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the district court’s said opinion.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a damage suit, grounded on the Civil Rights Act and diversity jurisdiction, filed by a federal prisoner and his wife. 1 The appellants *978 sued the warden of the institution where the husband is confined, complaining that the warden has denied marital visitations to the appellants. The district court stated reasons for its ruling in a comprehensive memorandum opinion', which is reported as Polakoff v. Henderson, N.D.Ga.1973, 370 F.Supp. 690. We affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the district court’s said opinion.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 F.2d 977, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheldon-polakoff-and-gloria-polakoff-v-j-d-henderson-warden-u-s-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack