Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brown v. Metts, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Frederick Brown filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical services providers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief on Brown's complaint. Brown then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Brown appealed both rulings. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's orders denying relief on Brown's complaint and his motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-04-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7573

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Frederick Brown filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical services providers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief on Brown's complaint. Brown then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Brown appealed both rulings. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's orders denying relief on Brown's complaint and his motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

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

    Brown v. Metts, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frederick Brown filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against prison officials and medical services providers alleging violations of his civil rights. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation to deny relief on Brown's complaint. Brown then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Brown appealed both rulings. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's orders denying relief on Brown's complaint and his motion for reconsideration.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7573

    FREDERICK BROWN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES R. METTS, Sheriff; CAPTAIN WILLIAMS;
    MAJOR HARRIS; EMSA CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL CARE
    SERVICES; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    No. 02-7775

    FREDERICK BROWN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES R. METTS, Sheriff; CAPTAIN WILLIAMS;
    MAJOR HARRIS; EMSA CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL CARE
    SERVICES; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (CA-99-1040-3-10BC)

    Submitted:

    March 24, 2003

    Decided:

    April 9, 2003

    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Frederick Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


    James Miller Davis, Jr.,
    DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Frederick Brown appeals the district courts orders accepting
    the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint and denying reconsideration
    of that order.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    See Brown v. Metts, No. CA-99-1040-3-10BC

    (D.S.C. Oct. 4 & 31, 2002).

    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

    You might also like