Filed: Feb. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1993 In Re: JEROME JULIUS BROWN, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-mc-00010-REP) Submitted: January 25, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not bindi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1993 In Re: JEROME JULIUS BROWN, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-mc-00010-REP) Submitted: January 25, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Julius Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not bindin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1993 In Re: JEROME JULIUS BROWN, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-mc-00010-REP) Submitted: January 25, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Sr. appeals the district court’s standing order imposing pre-filing restrictions on Brown. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See In re Jerome Julius Brown, No. 3:10- mc-00010-REP (E.D. Va. July 28, 2010). We grant Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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
