# Brown v. Patrick

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 23, 2009

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1030808

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 23, 2009
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1030808

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7157

JEVON EDWARD BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICK, Virginia Department of Corrections Officer, C/O,
employee for Unit #27; MR. RAGSDALE, Virginia Department of
Transportation, Foreman, Crew Virginia; MS. FRANCHER,
Virginia Department of Corrections, Unit #27, Medical Care
Assistant/Personnel; R. GRAMMER, Virginia Department of
Corrections, Unit #27, former inmate; J. H. SNODGRASS; A.
HARRIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01345-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jevon Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jevon Edward Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying what it construed to be a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for reconsideration of the district court’s February 24, 2009

order dismissing Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action against

Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Brown v. Patrick, 1:08-cv-01345-TSE-TRJ (E.D.

Va. Apr. 20, 2009). 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/1030808. Public record. Not legal advice.