Erwin Donnell Bullock v. David A. Garraghty Kenneth L. Osborne L. E. Nelson, 7 F.3d 222, 4th Cir. (1993)
Erwin Donnell Bullock v. David A. Garraghty Kenneth L. Osborne L. E. Nelson, 7 F.3d 222, 4th Cir. (1993)
Erwin Donnell Bullock v. David A. Garraghty Kenneth L. Osborne L. E. Nelson, 7 F.3d 222, 4th Cir. (1993)
3d 222
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Richmond.
Erwin Donnell Bullock, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Harkness Herring, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Appellees.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
1
U.S.C. 1983 (1988) action. Bullock claimed that his rights to procedural due
process under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), were violated.
2
A jury trial was held. Bullock testified that he did not receive notice of the
rescheduling of his disciplinary hearing. Although prison officials were unable
to produce a copy of the notice, they testified one must have been sent, and
offered reasons supporting that contention. All other witnesses arrived at the
hearing. Standard prison procedure required that a notice be given and that
reviewing authorities insure that prisoners received the notice. Also, such
notices are not typically kept. The jury resolved the conflict in the testimony in
favor of the Defendants.
Such credibility determinations are within the sole province of the jury and are
not susceptible to review. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56 (4th Cir.
1989); Pigford v. United States, 518 F.2d 831 (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
AFFIRMED