Filed: Dec. 23, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7311 GRAYLING BROWN-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BESTY MURPHY, Supervisor; SEPTAMINE THOMAS, Probation Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00757-TSE-JFA) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7311 GRAYLING BROWN-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BESTY MURPHY, Supervisor; SEPTAMINE THOMAS, Probation Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00757-TSE-JFA) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7311
GRAYLING BROWN-EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BESTY MURPHY, Supervisor; SEPTAMINE THOMAS, Probation
Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00757-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grayling Brown-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Grayling Brown-El appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Brown-El v. Murphy, No. 1:11-cv-00757-
TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 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
2