# Brown v. Metts

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 9, 2003

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1010262

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 9, 2003
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/1010262

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court’s 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1010262. Public record. Not legal advice.