TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James R. Durham, Jr. v. Federal Prison Industries, and Doctor J. F. Alderete

James R. DURHAM, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, and Doctor J. F. Alderete, Respondents-Appellees

Durham v. Fed. Prison Indus., & Doctor J. F. Alderete, 464 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 28, 1972
Docket
No. 72-1847
Judges
Bell, Dyer, Clark
Citations
464 F.2d 10261972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8164

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Durham, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, appeals the district court’s denial of his claim for accident compensation against the Federal Prison Industries (FPI), 28 C.F.R. § 301.7 . Finding no clear error in the ruling below, we affirm.

In the district court, Durham sought $90,000 for accident compensation and back pay arising out of an alleged injury which resulted from his work assignment in the prison's Basket Shop. He claimed that his back was injured sometime between November 16, 1970, and November 20, 1970, when he lifted a 235 pound sewing machine.

After correctly concluding that Durham had the right to seek judicial review from the FPI’s denial of his claim ( 5 U.S.C.A. § 702 , Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 1967, 387 U.S. 136, 141 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 ), the district court held that “in the absence of a showing that the FPI rendered its decision in disregard of compelling medical evi *1027 dence, its decision must stand.” 5 U.S. C.A. § 706.

On the basis of all the medical reports filed in response to the complaint, and Durham’s failure to produce any objective proof of an injury resulting from his industrial work assignment, the district court did not err in its denial of relief under 28 C.F.R. § 301 . The denial of Durham’s claim for back wages was similarly proper since the record shows that Durham’s own pleadings belie his contention that he has not been paid his industrial wage during the relevant period.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11977: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davis v. United States415 F. Supp. 1086 (D. Kan. 1976)
  2. Berry v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc.440 F. Supp. 1147 (N.D. Cal. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Berry v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc.440 F. Supp. 1147 (N.D. Cal. 1977)
  2. Davis v. United States415 F. Supp. 1086 (D. Kan. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Abbott Lab'ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) 5,317

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list