# Brown v. Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 16, 2001 · 22 F. App'x 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005845

## Case

- **Full name:** James Alfred BROWN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 16, 2001
- **Citations:** 22 F. App'x 153
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkins, Michael, King
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005845

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7231

JAMES ALFRED BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-792-7)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Alfred Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Alfred Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-

trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason-

ing of the district court. Brown v. Warden, No. CA-00-792-7 (W.D.

Va. filed July 3, 2001; entered July 5, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005845. Public record. Not legal advice.