Briscoe v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1141 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Briscoe v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1141 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nichols v. Comcast Cablevision of Maryland (mdd, 2000-01-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Nichols v. Comcast Cablevision of Maryland
D. Maryland · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Riley v. Technical and Management Services Corp., Inc., 872 F.Supp. 1454, 1459 (D.Md.1995), aff'd, 79 F.3d 1141 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished table decision) (summary judgment for employer because there is no mention of a hostile work environment or sexual harassment of any kind in the EEOC charges). 18 D.
cited Cited "see" Gnadt v. Castro
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gnadt v. Castro, 79 F.3d 1141 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished per curiam opinion).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Morris
W.D. Va. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Riley v. Technical and Management Services Corporation, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 1454, 1458-60 (D.Md.1995) (granting the employer’s summary judgment motion, because the court did not have jurisdiction over a hostile environment claim that was not presented to the EEOC), aff'd, 79 F.3d 1141 (4th Cir.1996); Hansen v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 887 F.Supp. 669 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (plaintiff barred from adding hostile environment claim because plaintiff had not obtained right-to-sue letter from EEOC on the issue).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Mitchell v. Bandag, Inc.
E.D.N.C. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hairston v. Multi-Channel TV Cable Co., 79 F.3d 1141 (Table), 1996 WL 119916, **2 (4th Cir.1996) (holding district court properly dismissed plaintiffs state law constructive discharge claim for failure to state a claim where Virginia courts had not expanded the state’s public policy exception to include a claim of constructive discharge); and Cortes v. McDonald’s Corp., 955 F.Supp. 539, 541 (E.D.N.C.1996) (finding persuasive defendants’ argument that the North Carolina Supreme Court would not recognize a new cause of action for wrongful constructive discharge because public poli…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Francis Briscoe
v.
William Smith, Warden Parris N. Glendening, Governor Kathleen K. Townsend, Lieutenant Bishop L. Robinson, Secretary of Public Safety Richard Lanham, Parole Commissioner Paul Davis, Deputy Commissioner Dan D. Zaccognini, Commissioner Michael Blount, Commissioner
95-7720.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 12, 1996.
79 F.3d 1141
Unpublished

79 F.3d 1141

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 Francis BRISCOE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William SMITH, Warden; Parris N. Glendening, Governor;
Kathleen K. Townsend, Lieutenant; Bishop L. Robinson,
Secretary of Public Safety; Richard Lanham, Parole
Commissioner; Paul Davis, Deputy Commissioner; Dan D.
Zaccognini, Commissioner; Michael Blount, Commissioner,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7720.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 20, 1996.
Decided: March 12, 1996.

John Francis Briscoe, Appellant Pro Se.

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

John Francis Briscoe, a Maryland inmate, claimed in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action that he was improperly denied parole in August 1995. He also alleged that his next parole eligibility hearing was scheduled for 1997, although he previously had received annual hearings. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

2

Briscoe's claim concerning the timing of his parole eligibility reviews is sufficient to survive dismissal under § 1915(d). If there was a statutory or regulatory amendment which altered the definition of criminal conduct or increased the penalty by which a crime is punishable, that amendment should be analyzed for a possible ex post facto violation. See California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 63 U.S.L.W. 4327 (U.S. Apr. 25, 1995) (No. 93-1462). The record is devoid of any reference to any such amendment or regulation, rendering it impossible to conduct an analysis under Morales. We therefore vacate the district court's decision with regard to this claim and remand for an analysis of the claim under the factors set forth in Morales.

3

To the extent that Briscoe appeals the district court's remaining findings, 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. Briscoe v. Smith, No. CA-95-2791-DKC (D.Md. Sept. 29, 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.

4

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART