Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brown v. Captain Cox, 99-7223 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7223 Visitors: 69
Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7223 CURTIS J. BROWN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN COX; T. WILLIAMS, Officer; LIA BLANC, Officer; OFFICER HOUSTON; OFFICER DURBIN; CHIEF WITLOCK; AL CANNON, Sheriff; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-2316-2-18-AJ)
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7223 CURTIS J. BROWN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN COX; T. WILLIAMS, Officer; LIA BLANC, Officer; OFFICER HOUSTON; OFFICER DURBIN; CHIEF WITLOCK; AL CANNON, Sheriff; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-2316-2-18-AJ) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis J. Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Wilson Howell, IV, HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY & GUERARD, Charleston, South Carolina; Joseph Dawson, III, CHARLESTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis J. Brown, Sr., appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Captain Cox, No. CA-98-2316-2- 18-AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 1999). We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer