Gary Waverly Wooten, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ralph W. Packard, Warden; Office Burrell, Defendant-appellees, 801 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1986)
Annotate this CaseGary Waverly Wooten, appellant pro se.
Stephen Howard Sachs, Glenn W. Bell, Office of the Attorney General, for appellees.
D. Md.
AFFIRMED.
Before RUSSELL, SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal from its order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. Wooten v. Packard, C/A No. Y-85-4222 (D. Md., Apr. 17, 1986).*
AFFIRMED.
Even assuming that state administrative procedural regulations were not observed to the letter, the procedures utilized by the state nevertheless comported with Fourteenth Amendment minimum due process requirements. In establishing administrative procedural rules, the state does not create an independent substantive due process right. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250-51 & n .12 (1983)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
