Opinion of the Court — Hill v. Ghee

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: March 21, 2002
Case: Hill v. Ghee
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

*219 ORDER Stanley Hill, a pro se Ohio prisoner, appeals a district court order dismissing the civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Seeking monetary, declaratory, and in-junctive relief, Hill sued the members of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority alleging that the Parole Authority violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him parole. Hill contends that the Authority used false information outside his inmate records in determining his eligibility for parole. Further, Hill stated that the chairman of the Parole Authority has an unwritten and unlawful policy that persons convicted of murder must serve at least twenty years before being granted parole. Upon de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In his timely appeal, Hill argues that the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge’s report and did not properly reconsider its judgment in light of his…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.