Ross v. Woodard, 683 F.2d 846 (4th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Ross v. Woodard, 683 F.2d 846 (4th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Garrett v. Angelone (vaccfairfax, 1996-05-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Garrett v. Angelone
Fairfax Cir. Ct. · 1996 · confidence medium
Franklin, 569 F.2d at 800 ; Ross v. Woodard, 683 F.2d 846, 847 (4th Cir. 1982).
cited Cited "see" Jennings v. Parole Board of Virginia
E.D. Va. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fleming, 888 F.Supp. at 741 (citing Ross v. Woodard, 683 F.2d 846, 846-47 (4th Cir.1982)). 15 As such, this claim fails.
cited Cited "see" Fleming v. Murray
E.D. Va. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ross v. Woodard, 683 F.2d 846, 846-47 (4th Cir.1982); Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 794 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1003 , 98 S.Ct. 1659 , 56 L.Ed.2d 92 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel Ross
v.
James C. Woodard, Chairman, N. C. Parole Comm. Jane G. Greenlee, Commissioner Joy J. Johnson, Commissioner Rae H. McNamara Commissioner Commissioner Oxendine Sam Boyd, Case Analyst, in Their Individual and Official Capacities
82-6134.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 16, 1982.
683 F.2d 846
Published

683 F.2d 846

Daniel ROSS, Appellant,
v.
James C. WOODARD, Chairman, N. C. Parole Comm.; Jane G.
Greenlee, Commissioner; Joy J. Johnson, Commissioner; Rae H.
McNamara, Commissioner; Commissioner Oxendine; Sam Boyd,
Case Analyst, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees.

No. 82-6134.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1982.
Decided July 16, 1982.

Thomas F. Loflin, III, Shirley L. Fulton, Durham, N. C., for appellant.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Jacob L. Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., on brief, for appellees.

Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

1

Presently serving a life sentence in North Carolina for first degree murder and failing in his continuing endeavors to have the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment construed as requiring a prisoner's access to his files when he is considered for parole, Daniel Ross again appeals. Assuming arguendo that our latest pronouncement on this point does not bar the instant action by the doctrine of res judicata, see Ross v. Byrd, No. 78-6449 (4th Cir. July 24, 1980) (unpublished), we state unequivocally that Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), does not require the State to provide a potential parolee with access to his prison files. Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 800 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1003, 98 S.Ct. 1659, 56 L.Ed.2d 92 (1978).

The judgment of the District Court is

2

Affirmed.

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, concurring:

3

In Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 800 (4th Cir. 1978) (en banc), the court held-contrary to the conclusion reached by the panel, 569 F.2d at 794-95-that a prisoner was not entitled to have access to his files. In Greenholtz v. Nebraska, 442 U.S. 1, 15 n.7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2108 n.7, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), the Court noted that the question of access to files had not been raised. Consequently, I conclude that the en banc decision of Franklin v. Shields dictates affirmance of this appeal.