# Curtis Brown, Sr. v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 23, 2015 · 607 F. App'x 316

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2810929

## Case

- **Full name:** Curtis Jerome BROWN, Sr., A/K/A Curtis J. Brown, Sr., A/K/A Curtis Jerome Brown, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; US Probation Office, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 23, 2015
- **Citations:** 607 F. App'x 316
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Shedd, Duncan, Agee
- **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/2810929

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6254

CURTIS JEROME BROWN, SR., a/k/a Curtis J. Brown, Sr., a/k/a
Curtis Jerome Brown,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; US PROBATION OFFICE,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-04340-DCN)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Jerome Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Curtis Jerome Brown, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing, without prejudice, Brown’s petition for a writ of

mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

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

district court. Brown v. United States, No. 2:14-cv-04340-DCN

(D.S.C. Jan. 30, 2015). We grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2810929. Public record. Not legal advice.