# White v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 12, 1987 · 815 F.2d 707

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/486081

## Case

- **Full name:** Leon Charles White, Jr. v. Robert Brown, Jr., Theodore Koehler, John Hawley, David E. Magadanz, Bruce L. Forstrom, Larry Thornton, Daniel C. Larson, Robert A. Napel, Karl Johnson
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 12, 1987
- **Citations:** 815 F.2d 707; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18269; 1987 WL 36746
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/486081

## Opinion text

815 F.2d 707
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Leon Charles WHITE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert BROWN, Jr., Theodore Koehler, John Hawley, David E.
Magadanz, Bruce L. Forstrom, Larry Thornton,
Daniel C. Larson, Robert A. Napel, Karl
Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-1774.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 12, 1987.
Before ENGEL, KRUPANSKY and GUY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
This case has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the appellant's motion for counsel, informal brief and the record, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
White initiated a civil rights complaint in the district court alleging that he had been deprived of property without due process and that he had received unlawful and arbitrary treatment. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 (d). It appears from a review of the record that the district court did not err in dismissing the case.
3
It is ORDERED that the motion for counsel be denied ad the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the district court opinion. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/486081. Public record. Not legal advice.