# Jerome Brown v. Karl Racine

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 15, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4703917

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 15, 2021
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/4703917

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2195

JEROME JULIUS BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. KARL A. RACINE, Attorney General; MR. BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney
General; MR. JEFFREY LOMEN, Asst. Attorney General; IRFAN CHAUDHRY,
President CEO; DAYS INN HOTEL BY WYNDHAM; KEITH A. CLINE,
President CEO; LAQUINTA BY WYNDHAM; VIP INVESTMENT LLC, Arms
Length Date 9-27-2006 Deed 1/00000/00000; KESAN ENTERPRISES
INCORPORATED, Date 02-17-2006 Deed 1/00000/00000; AP BEANY LP, Arms
Length Improved Date 07-24-2002 Deed 1/16055/364; MAILING ADDRESS -
5801 BALTIMORE NATIONAL PIKE CATONSVILLE MD, Deed
Reference/00000/00000,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cv-02991-GLR)

Submitted: July 7, 2021 Decided: July 15, 2021

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Jerome Julius Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We

have reviewed the record and Brown’s brief on appeal, and we conclude that this appeal is

frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992);

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4703917. Public record. Not legal advice.