Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ronald Brown v. Alvin Harris, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ronald Brown appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Alvin Harris and Nurse Audrey Moore from the Southampton Correctional Center. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Brown v. Harris. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6158

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ronald Brown appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Alvin Harris and Nurse Audrey Moore from the Southampton Correctional Center. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Brown v. Harris. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Ronald Brown v. Alvin Harris, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ronald Brown appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Dr. Alvin Harris and Nurse Audrey Moore from the Southampton Correctional Center. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so they affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Brown v. Harris. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6158

    RONALD BROWN,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    ALVIN EUGENE HARRIS, M.D., individually and in his official
    capacity
    as
    Southampton
    Correctional
    Center
    facility
    physician; AUDREY MOORE, Nurse, LPN, individually and in
    her
    official
    capacity
    as
    a
    nurse
    at
    Southampton
    Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:10-cv-00613-REP)

    Submitted:

    April 19, 2012

    Decided:

    April 26, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ronald Jeffrey Brown, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen,


    PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald

    Brown

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Brown v. Harris, No. 3:10-cv-00613-REP (E.D. Va. Jan. 3,

    2012).

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like