Filed: Oct. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1487 JEROME JULIUS BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01514-GBL-IDD) Submitted: October 1, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1487 JEROME JULIUS BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01514-GBL-IDD) Submitted: October 1, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1487
JEROME JULIUS BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01514-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: October 1, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Brown v. Motorola Mobility Inc., No. 1:13-
cv-01514-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2014). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2