Thomas W. Daughtrey v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States, Etc., No. 73-2610 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409

Fifth Circuit

Thomas W. Daughtrey v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States, Etc., No. 73-2610 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409

490 F.2d 867

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1973

Docket867

StatusPublished

This text of 490 F.2d 867 (Thomas W. Daughtrey v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States, Etc., No. 73-2610 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409) 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

Thomas W. Daughtrey v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States, Etc., No. 73-2610 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir., See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, 490 F.2d 867 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

490 F.2d 867

Thomas W. DAUGHTREY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Attorney General of the United States,
et al., etc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 73-2610 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431
F.2d 409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Thomas W. Daughtrey, pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Gale McKenzie, Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue is appellant's claim that the United States Board of Parole acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in considering his application for parole because it did not obtain a psychiatric evaluation of him, whereas it has obtained such an evaluation on at least one other applicant which was highly favorable to such other applicant.

The Board violated neither equal protection nor due process nor statutory provisions which permit but do not require psychiatric evaluations of prisoners. 18 U.S.C. 4005, 4042, 4081.

Affirmed.

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

490 F.2d 867

Thomas W. DAUGHTREY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Attorney General of the United States,
et al., etc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 73-2610 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431
F.2d 409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Thomas W. Daughtrey, pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Gale McKenzie, Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue is appellant's claim that the United States Board of Parole acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in considering his application for parole because it did not obtain a psychiatric evaluation of him, whereas it has obtained such an evaluation on at least one other applicant which was highly favorable to such other applicant.

The Board violated neither equal protection nor due process nor statutory provisions which permit but do not require psychiatric evaluations of prisoners. 18 U.S.C. 4005, 4042, 4081.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 F.2d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-w-daughtrey-v-elliot-l-richardson-attorney-general-of-the-united-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack