# Brown v. Catoe

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 28, 2002 · 31 F. App'x 279

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007076

## Case

- **Full name:** Dyzondria BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug E. CATOE; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 28, 2002
- **Citations:** 31 F. App'x 279
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, Michael, Per Curiam, Williams
- **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/1007076

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8028

DYZONDRIA BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DOUG E. CATOE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-2810-9-10RB)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dyzondria Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Dyzondria Brown appeals 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 magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Brown v. Catoe, No. CA-00-2810-9-10RB

(D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2001). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007076. Public record. Not legal advice.