U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 28, 1974 · Coleman, Gewin, Morgan, Per Curiam

488 F.2d 977; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10357 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff, pro se., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., William D. Mallard, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

DAKER v. LAIDLER (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2022)
WADE v. PILOT FLYING J INC (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2022)
DAKER v. DAVIS (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2021)
Luther Arthur Horn, III v. Estate of Lauren Camacho (11th Cir. 2020)
Seth v. District of Columbia (District Court, District of Columbia 2018)
Gutierrez v. Ornelas (5th Cir. 2002)
William Mitchell v. Phillip Morris Incorporated (11th Cir. 2002)
Joseph E.L. Sullivan v. David R. Freeman and James C. Delworth (7th Cir. 1991)
John Anthony Housand v. Maxwell Heiman (2d Cir. 1979)
Sylvester Jones v. J. Martin Hadican (8th Cir. 1977)
McGinnis v. Stevens (Alaska 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a damage suit, grounded on the Civil Rights Act and diversity jurisdiction, filed by a federal prisoner and his wife. 1 The appellants *978 sued the warden of the institution where the husband is confined, complaining that the warden has denied marital visitations to the appellants. The district court stated reasons for its ruling in a comprehensive memorandum opinion', which is reported as Polakoff v. Henderson, N.D.Ga.1973, 370 F.Supp. 690. We affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the district court’s said opinion.

Affirmed.

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.