Jaindl v. Warden, Washington Cnty. Det. Ctr., 993 F.2d 1537 (1st Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Jaindl v. Warden, Washington Cnty. Det. Ctr., 993 F.2d 1537 (1st Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alward v. Rokosky (mdd, 2025-03-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alward v. Rokosky
D. Maryland · 2025 · confidence medium
Mar. 2, 2022) (holding conditions of confinement and retaliation claims should be raised in separate civil rights action); Jones v. Smith, 993 F.2d 1537, 1537 (D.
discussed Cited "see" Haddam v. Reno
E.D. Va. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Joseph v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 993 F.2d 1537 , 1993 WL 169035 (4th Cir.1993) ("[0]ur review [of the INS’s discretion to parole into the United States] is limited to determining whether the INS in fact exercised its discretion and whether its exercise of discretion was 'on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.’ ”) (citing Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204, 212 (2d Cir.1982); see also Singh v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 965 F.Supp. 724, 730 (D.Md.1997) ("[T]he standard of review of a decision of the Attorney General to deny paro…
discussed Cited "see" Haddam v. Reno
E.D. Va. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Joseph v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 993 F.2d 1537 , 1993 WL 169035 (4th Cir.1993) ("[0]ur review [of the INS’s discretion to parole into the United States] is limited to determining whether the INS in fact exercised its discretion and whether its exercise of discretion was 'on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.' ”) (citing Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204, 212 (2d Cir.1982);) see also Marczak v. Greene, 971 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1992) (applying "facially legitimate and bona fide reason” standard).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Herman Joseph Jaindl
v.
Warden, Washington County Detention Center Charles Mades Wayne McAllister Ronald Long Ed Long Deputy Powell John Doe, Corporal John Doe, Deputy First Class John Doe, Deputy Janis Bowman, in Their Individual and Official Capacities Maryland Attorney General Washington County (Md) State Attorney
93-6272.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
May 28, 1993.
993 F.2d 1537
Unpublished

993 F.2d 1537

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.
Herman Joseph JAINDL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Washington County Detention Center; Charles Mades;
Wayne McAllister; Ronald Long; Ed Long; Deputy Powell;
John Doe, Corporal; John Doe, Deputy First Class; John
Doe, Deputy; Janis Bowman, in their individual and official
capacities; Maryland Attorney General; Washington County
(Md) State Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-6272.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 3, 1993
Decided: May 28, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-92-1624-JFM)

Herman Joseph Jaindl, Appellant Pro Se.

Matthew Thomas Angotti, Anderson, Coe & King, Baltimore, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Steven Giles Hildenbrand, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Daniel Karp, Allen, Johnson, Alexander & Karp, Baltimore, Maryland; D'Ana Edwina Johnson, Allen, Johnson, Alexander & KARP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Herman Joseph Jaindl filed this Notice of Appeal eight days prior to the district court's entry of judgment for the Defendants in Jaindl's civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Jaindl did not specify the order that was being appealed.

2

This appeal is premature under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1),[*] thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). We note that, by failing to specify the order being appealed, the Notice of Appeal also fails to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

*

Because no decision had yet been announced when this appeal was filed, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) cannot save it