# Brown v. Payne

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11059910

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 27, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **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/11059910

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION

GARY LEWIS BROWN,
ADC #115152 PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-00524-KGB

DEXTER PAYNE RESPONDENT

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate
Judge Edie Ervin (Dkt. No. 19). Petitioner Gary Lewis Brown has filed objections to Judge Ervin’s
Recommended Disposition (Dkt. Nos. 20; 21). Mr. Brown also filed additional documents with
the Court (Dkt. Nos. 22; 23). After careful review of the Recommended Disposition and Mr.
Brown’s objections, and a de novo review of the record including all of his filings, the Court adopts
the Recommended Disposition as its findings of fact and conclusions of law (Dkt. No. 19).
The Court writes to address the objections. Mr. Brown is currently serving a 35-year
sentence in the Arkansas Division of Correction (Dkt. No. 1, at 3). Mr. Brown’s petition asserts
that the Arkansas Supreme Court erred in denying his petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court for consideration of coram nobis relief due to an alleged violation under Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), because the video presented at trial was allegedly different from the one
produced in discovery in that it was altered to make inaudible “derogatory comments by law
enforcement.” (Dkt. No. 1, at 4-5). As best the Court can determine, Mr. Brown’s objections raise
issues regarding his constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, as well as due process and equal
protection claims (Dkt. No. 20, at 1). The only claim raised by Mr. Brown in his objections that
is also raised in his petition is the equal protection claim (Dkt. Nos. 1, at 4–5; 20, at 1). The
Recommended Disposition concludes that Mr. Brown’s equal protection claim is procedurally
defaulted (Dkt. No. 19, at 4-7). Based on this Court’s review, the objections do not address the
procedural default issue (Dkt. No. 20, at 1). After careful review of the Recommended Disposition,
Mr. Brown’s objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that Mr. Brown’s
objections break no new ground and fail to rebut the Recommended Disposition. The Court adopts
the Recommended Disposition.
It is so ordered this 27th day of May, 2025.
Kush A: Palin
Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11059910. Public record. Not legal advice.