# Donald Brown v. Warden FCI Williamsburg

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 23, 2018 · 712 F. App'x 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4247990

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 23, 2018
- **Citations:** 712 F. App'x 298
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Agee, Shedd
- **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/4247990

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7321

DONALD BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:17-cv-01412-RMG)

Submitted: February 20, 2018 Decided: February 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Donald Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Respondent

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Warden FCI Williamsburg,

No. 4:17-cv-01412-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2017). 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/4247990. Public record. Not legal advice.