# Brown v. Bamberg

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 17, 2007

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1023981

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 17, 2007
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1023981

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6894

KELVIN BROWN, a/k/a Kelvin Demeatrius Brown,
a/k/a Kelvin D. Brown,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE J. BAMBERG, Deputy Director, in their
individual and official capacities as
Orangeburg Calhoun Regional Detention Center
employees; HORACE JAMES, Chief, in their
individual and official capacities as
Orangeburg Calhoun Regional Detention Center
employees; JERMAINE DOWNING, in their
individual and official capacities as
Orangeburg Calhoun Regional Detention Center
employees,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(8:04-cv-22925-TLW)

Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Demeatrius Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens,
BOGOSLOW, JONES, STEPHENS & DUFFIE, PA, Walterboro, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Demeatrius Brown appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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.

Bamberg, No. 8:04-cv-22925-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 28 & May 22, 2007). We

deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

- 3 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1023981. Public record. Not legal advice.