Rankins v. Lanham, 91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Rankins v. Lanham, 91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the district court properly dismissed the claims against . . . bureau of prisons because they are not persons subject to suit under bivens.”
66 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Arthur v. State of South Carolina (scd, 2024-11-04) · Strongest negative: Patricia Hausner v. United States of America, United States Department of Transportation Federal Maritime Administration, and Tote Services, LLC (mdd, 2025-12-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Patricia Hausner v. United States of America, United States Department of Transportation Federal Maritime Administration, and Tote Services, LLC
D. Maryland · 2025 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Owens v. United States, 91 F.3d 132 , 1996 WL 386607, at *1 (4th Cir. July 1, 1996) (unpublished) (“The two year limitations period under the Suits in Admiralty Act, which also applies to suits under the Public Vessels Act through 46 U.S.C. § 78 , is jurisdictional.” (citing Williams v. United States, 228 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1955))).
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Arthur v. State of South Carolina
D.S.C. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court properly dismissed the claims against . . . bureau of prisons because they are not persons subject to suit under bivens.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zurich American Insurance Company v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company
D. Ariz. · 2021 · confidence medium
A district court has no independent duty “to scour the record in search of a 19 genuine issue of triable fact[.]” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 132 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 20 II.
discussed Cited "see" Fox v. City of Greensboro
M.D.N.C. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Apr. 15, 2011) (discussing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim); see Blue v. Bigos, 89 F.3d 827 (4th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (“[P]roximate cause is part of a § 1983 plaintiff’s burden.” (citing Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798-99 (4th Cir.1994))). 22 Courts have recognized that “where an officer presents all relevant probable cause evidence to an intermediary, such as a prosecutor, a grand jury, or a magistrate, the intermediary’s independent decision to seek a warrant, issue a warrant, or return an indictment …
discussed Cited "see" Snider v. Seung Lee (2×)
4th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rhodes v. Smitkers, 939 F.Supp. 1256, 1274 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (collecting cases), aff'd, 91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir.1996); see also Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1564 (10th Cir.1996); Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049, 1053 (7th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Belanger v. Commissioner of Social Security
W.D.N.C. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Miller v. Chater, 91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1996) (affirming ALJ’s decision that plaintiff could perform light work where the RFC limited plaintiff to standing no more than four hours); Jones v. Colvin, No. ED CV 14- 0530 JCG, 2015 WL 3952309 , at *1–2 (C.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bailey v. Atlantic Automotive Corp.
D. Maryland · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Godfredson v. JBC Legal Grp., P.C., 387 F.Supp.2d 548, 550 (E.D.N.C.2005) (holding that the independent personal stake exception was inapplicable to a claim that a law firm and its sole owner conspired together where the plaintiff alleged that the owner had a personal stake in the conspiracy based on his financial interest in his own law firm); see also Patel v. Scotland Mem’l Hosp., 91 F.3d 132 , at *3 (4th Cir.1996) (explaining that the personal stake exception is limited “to include only instances where the individual conspiring has a personal financial interest in the conspiracy in…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Zaher Zahrey v. Martin E. Coffey
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
The complaint adequately alleges that the deprivation of Zahrey’s liberty was the legally cognizable result of Coffey’s alleged misconduct in fabricating evidence. 11 We recognize that this conclusion is in tension, if not conflict, with the majority opinion by Judge Easterbrook for the Seventh Circuit in Buckley IV, on remand from the Supreme Court; see also Rhodes v. Smithers, 939 F.Supp. 1256, 1270 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (following the reasoning of Buckley IV), aff'd, 91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir.1996) (table).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Be-Lo Stores v. NLRB
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Riesbeck Food Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 91 F.3d 132 , 1996 WL 405224 , at **4 (4th Cir. July 19, 1996) (unpublished disposition) (cit- ing favorably the Board's opinion in the instant case, 318 N.L.R.B.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Be-Lo Stores v. National Labor Relations Board
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Riesbeck Food Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 91 F.3d 132 , 1996 WL 405224 , at *4 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished disposition) (citing favorably the Board’s opinion in the instant case, 318 N.L.R.B.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Be-Lo Stores v. National Labor Relations Board, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 400, Afl-Cio, Clc, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 400, Afl-Cio, Clc, Intervenor v. Be-Lo Stores
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Riesbeck Food Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 91 F.3d 132 , 1996 WL 405224 , at * 4 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished disposition) (citing favorably the Board's opinion in the instant case, 318 N.L.R.B.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael Rankins
v.
Richard A. Lanham, Sr. William Smith, Warden Queen Stoops, Case Management Larry Bowers, Case Management A. Smith, Case Management Sergeant Yellerton, in Their Individual and Official Capacities
96-6269.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 1, 1996.
91 F.3d 132
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 77%
Citer courts: D. South Carolina (1)

91 F.3d 132

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.
Michael RANKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard A. LANHAM, Sr.; William Smith, Warden; Queen
Stoops, Case Management; Larry Bowers, Case Management; A.
Smith, Case Management; Sergeant Yellerton, in their
individual and official capacities, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-6269.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 1996.
Decided July 1, 1996.

Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rankins v. Lanham, No. CA-95-1953-JFM (D.Md. Feb. 5, 1996).

2

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.

3

AFFIRMED.