# Brown v. Fahey

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 20, 2006 · 203 F. App'x 460

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020724

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael A. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Chairwoman; David N. Harker, Vice Chairman; Gene Johnson, Director, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 20, 2006
- **Citations:** 203 F. App'x 460
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, King, Duncan
- **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/1020724

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7032

MICHAEL A. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman; DAVID N. HARKER,
Vice Chairman; GENE JOHNSON, Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:05-cv-00466-RBS)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 20, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael A. Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v.

Fahey, No. 2:05-cv-00466-RBS (E.D. Va. filed May 8; entered May 11,

2006). We deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel and

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/1020724. Public record. Not legal advice.