Joseph C. Anders, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Margaret C. Hambrick; Barbara Holderfield; Ron Moore;barry Colley; United States Bureau of Prisons,defendants-appellees, 956 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 956 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1992) Feb. 26, 1992

Before RYAN and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and CHURCHILL, Senior District Judge.* 

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Joseph Anders requests appointment of counsel and appeals the district court's order dismissing his Bivens -type action for failure to state a cause of action. Anders claimed that the defendants violated his equal protection and due process rights by untimely filing his paperwork pursuant to Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The defendants are a case manager at the Federal Prison Camp in Petersburg, Virginia, and various officials at the Federal Correctional Institution at Ashland, Kentucky. They are sued in both their official and individual capacities. He requested damages and injunctive relief.

After reviewing the magistrate judge's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. See Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1474 (10th Cir. 1987).

Anders raises the same arguments on appeal.

Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court was correct in dismissing the case. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the June 26, 1991, Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation, which was adopted by the district court in its July 29, 1991, order, the district court's order is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The motion for counsel is denied.

 *

The Honorable James P. Churchill, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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.