Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jevon Brown v. Patrick, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jevon Edward Brown's motion for permission to appeal, which the district court construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. Brown appealed and filed motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript at government expense. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied Brown's motions and affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its November 3, 2011 order. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7580

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jevon Edward Brown's motion for permission to appeal, which the district court construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. Brown appealed and filed motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript at government expense. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied Brown's motions and affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its November 3, 2011 order. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views2 pages

    Jevon Brown v. Patrick, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jevon Edward Brown's motion for permission to appeal, which the district court construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. Brown appealed and filed motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript at government expense. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It denied Brown's motions and affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its November 3, 2011 order. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7580

    JEVON EDWARD BROWN,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PATRICK, Virginia Department of Corrections Officer, C/O,
    employee for Unit #27; MR. RAGSDALE, Virginia Department of
    Transportation, Forman, "Crew Virginia"; MS. FRANCHER,
    Virginia Department of Corrections, Unit #27, Medical Care
    Assistant/Personnel; R. GRAMMER, Virginia Department of
    Corrections, Unit #27, former inmate; J. H. SNODGRASS; A.
    HARRIS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:08-cv-01345-TSE-TRJ)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2012

    Decided:

    April 3, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jevon Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jevon Edward Brown appeals the district courts order
    denying his self-styled motion for permission to appeal, which
    the district court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion,
    and

    has

    filed

    motions

    for

    appointment

    transcript at government expense.


    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    of

    counsel

    and

    for

    We have reviewed the record


    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Browns

    motions and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
    Brown v. Patrick, No. 1:08-cv-01345-TSE-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Nov.
    2, 2011; entered Nov. 3, 2011).

    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

    You might also like