Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Erwin Donnell Bullock v. David A. Garraghty Kenneth L. Osborne L. E. Nelson, 7 F.3d 222, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Erwin Bullock filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming his due process rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing. The case went to a jury trial. Although Bullock testified he did not receive notice of the rescheduled hearing, prison officials said notice was sent according to standard procedure. The jury sided with the prison officials' testimony over Bullock's. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating credibility determinations are for the jury.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Erwin Donnell Bullock v. David A. Garraghty Kenneth L. Osborne L. E. Nelson, 7 F.3d 222, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Erwin Bullock filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming his due process rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing. The case went to a jury trial. Although Bullock testified he did not receive notice of the rescheduled hearing, prison officials said notice was sent according to standard procedure. The jury sided with the prison officials' testimony over Bullock's. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating credibility determinations are for the jury.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-09-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 7 F.3d 222 Docket: 92-6624

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Erwin Bullock filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming his due process rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing. The case went to a jury trial. Although Bullock testified he did not receive notice of the rescheduled hearing, prison officials said notice was sent according to standard procedure. The jury sided with the prison officials' testimony over Bullock's. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating credibility determinations are for the jury.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Erwin Donnell Bullock v. David A. Garraghty Kenneth L. Osborne L. E. Nelson, 7 F.3d 222, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Erwin Bullock filed a Section 1983 lawsuit claiming his due process rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing. The case went to a jury trial. Although Bullock testified he did not receive notice of the rescheduled hearing, prison officials said notice was sent according to standard procedure. The jury sided with the prison officials' testimony over Bullock's. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating credibility determinations are for the jury.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    7 F.

    3d 222

    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.
    Erwin Donnell BULLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    David A. GARRAGHTY; Kenneth L. Osborne; L. E. Nelson,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 92-6624.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 1993.
    Decided: September 22, 1993.

    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

    Erwin D. Bullock appeals a judgment in favor of the Defendants in his 42

    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

    You might also like