# Brown v. Murray

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 5, 1990 · 894 F.2d 401

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/535351

## Case

- **Full name:** James Arthur Brown, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray, Director Toni v. Bair, Regional Administrator David Williams, Warden, Powhatan Layton Laster, Treatment and Programs, Powhatan Pat Edge, Assistant Treatment and Programs, Powhatan
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 5, 1990
- **Citations:** 894 F.2d 401; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 112; 1990 WL 2311
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/535351

## Opinion text

894 F.2d 401
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
James Arthur BROWN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director; Toni V. Bair, Regional
Administrator; David Williams, Warden, Powhatan; Layton
Laster, Treatment and Programs, Powhatan; Pat Edge,
Assistant Treatment and Programs, Powhatan, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-7783.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 1989.
Decided: Jan. 5, 1990.
James Arthur Brown, Jr., appellant pro se.
Jeanette Dian Rogers, Office of the Attorney General, for appellees.
Before K.K. HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
James Arthur Brown, Jr. appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. * Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Murray, CA-89-487-N (E.D.Va., Sept. 8, 1989). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
2
AFFIRMED.
*
We have considered all documents filed by Brown, including his response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, in our review of this case

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/535351. Public record. Not legal advice.