# Ibrahim v. United States Parole Board Members

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 31, 2006 · 173 F. App'x 267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018819

## Case

- **Full name:** Jibril Luqman IBRAHIM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE BOARD Members; OTIS Thompson, United States Parole Commissioner, Et Al., Defendants—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 31, 2006
- **Citations:** 173 F. App'x 267
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Michael, Duncan
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018819

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7895

JIBRIL LUQMAN IBRAHIM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS; OTIS
THOMPSON, United States Parole Commissioner,
et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
03-3402-RDB)

Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jibril Luqman Ibrahim, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks,
Jennifer A. Wright, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Jibril Luqman Ibrahim appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Ibrahim v. U.S. Parole Board, No. CA-03-3402-

RDB (D. Md. filed Oct. 14, 2005 & entered Oct. 17, 2005). 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

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018819. Public record. Not legal advice.