# Brown v. Seranno

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 4, 2007 · 238 F. App'x 992

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1023687

## Case

- **Full name:** Lloyd Eugene BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jose A. SERANNO; Rex Blocker; Richard Frickey; Lousia Rosario; Gary Favour, Nurse; United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 4, 2007
- **Citations:** 238 F. App'x 992
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1023687

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6094

LLOYD EUGENE BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSE A. SERANNO; REX BLOCKER; RICHARD FRICKEY;
LOUSIA ROSARIO; GARY FAVOUR, Nurse; UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(2:05-cv-03342-RBH)

Submitted: June 29, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Eugene Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Brown v. Seranno, No. 2:05-cv-03342-RBH (D.S.C. filed

Nov. 30, 2006 & entered Dec. 1, 2006). 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/1023687. Public record. Not legal advice.