# Brown v. Brooks

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 21, 2004 · 96 F. App'x 929

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013285

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph M. BROOKS; United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 21, 2004
- **Citations:** 96 F. App'x 929
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, King, Shedd
- **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/1013285

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6128

CHARLES BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH M. BROOKS; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-346-2)

Submitted: May 12, 2004 Decided: May 21, 2004

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lynn Van Valkenburg,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Charles Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Brown v. Brooks, No. CA-03-346-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2003). 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/1013285. Public record. Not legal advice.