The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Jack D. Liffiton v. Carol Pavilack Getty Jasper Clay, Jr. Parole Examiner Tenny Parole Examiner Lindsey
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jack D. Liffiton v. Carol Pavilack Getty Jasper Clay, Jr. Parole Examiner Tenny Parole Examiner Lindsey

96-14660 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 91 F.3d 131 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of u...
  • AFFIRMED.
  • PER CURIAM:
  • AFFIRMED.

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 91 F.3d 131 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of u...
  • AFFIRMED.
  • PER CURIAM:
  • AFFIRMED.

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

91 F.3d 131

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jack D. LIFFITON, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Carol Pavilack GETTY; Jasper Clay, Jr.; Parole Examiner
Tenny; Parole Examiner Lindsey, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-1466.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 28, 1996.
Decided July 10, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1273-JFM).

Jack D. Liffiton, Appellant Pro Se. Kaye A. Allison, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Liffiton v. Getty, No. CA-95-1273-JFM (D.Md. Feb. 28, 1996). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap