Filed: Apr. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8075 KEITH MICHAEL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. BOYD, Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00330-RBS-LRL) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Michael Brown, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8075 KEITH MICHAEL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. BOYD, Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00330-RBS-LRL) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Michael Brown, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8075 KEITH MICHAEL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. BOYD, Officer, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00330-RBS-LRL) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Michael Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Boyd, No. 2:11-cv-00330-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2012). 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
