Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. Gunn, 95-7325 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7325 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7325 JAMES O. BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM E. GUNN; SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-1465-2-18AJ) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 95-7325



JAMES O. BROWN,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

         versus

WILLIAM E. GUNN; SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-95-1465-2-18AJ)


Submitted:   January 11, 1996            Decided:   January 24, 1996


Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James O. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re-

lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. We affirm the

district court's dismissal because the face of the Appellant's
complaint reveals that his eligibility for parole is the same as it

was when he was convicted. Accordingly, Appellant's complaint fails

to establish a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Cali-
fornia Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, ___ U.S. ___, 
63 U.S.L.W. 4327
, 4330 (U.S. Apr. 25, 1995) (No. 93-1462). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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