Neals v. Norwood

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that unserved, named parties are not “parties” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
• holding that unserved, named parties are not “parties” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
• explaining that “a prison and an inmate’s disagreement with a classification is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation”
• holding that “lack of written consent from the defendants did not deprive the magistrate judge of jurisdiction” to dismiss case because the defendants “had not been served [and therefore] were not parties to th[e] action at the time the magistrate entered judgment”
• finding that “a prison inmate does not have a protectable liberty or property interest in his custodial classification and an inmate’s disagreement with a classification is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation”
• noting that a “prison inmate does not have a protectable liberty or property interest in his custodial classification and an inmate’s disagreement with a classification is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).