Steven Robert Brodersen v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman of Virginia Parole Board

979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35175, 1992 WL 337080
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1992
Docket92-7002
StatusUnpublished

This text of 979 F.2d 847 (Steven Robert Brodersen v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman of Virginia Parole Board) 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
Steven Robert Brodersen v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr., Chairman of Virginia Parole Board, 979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35175, 1992 WL 337080 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

979 F.2d 847

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Steven Robert BRODERSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr., Chairman of Virginia Parole Board,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-7002.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 1992
Decided: November 17, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Steven Robert Brodersen, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Na.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Steven Robert Brodersen appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brodersen v. Jackson, No. CA-92-25-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 1992). 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

Related

Gardner (John Sterling, Jr.) v. Dixon (Gary)
979 F.2d 847 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
979 F.2d 847, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 35175, 1992 WL 337080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-robert-brodersen-v-clarence-l-jackson-jr-ch-ca4-1992.