The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7269
WILLIAM ARTHUR BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SYDNEY JEROME LACKEY, Vice Narcotics Detective; CHARLIE T.
DAVIS, Vice Narcotics Detective; LUKE J. DONAHUE, Vice
Narcotic Police; RODNEY D. MONROE, Chief of Police; R. G.
BUENING, Vice Detective, CMPD; M. J. PITCHER, Vice
Detective, CMPD; J. H. ALMOND, Vice Detective, CMPD; P. B.
FOUSHEE, Vice Detective, CMPD; W. O. CAREY, Vice Detective,
CMPD; M. GRIMSLEY, Vice Detective, CMPD; ELLIE COWDER,
Assistant District Attorney; SPENCER MARYWEATHER, Assistant
District Attorney; TERREA PELLEN, Assistant District
Attorney; ANDREW MURRAY, District Attorney; NATLIE G.
SIELAFF, Assistant District Attorney,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00414-GCM)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Arthur Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William Arthur Brown appeals the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006) because he had three
prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to
state a claim, and Brown did not allege he was in danger of
serious physical injury. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. ∗ Brown v. Lackey, No. 3:11-cv-
00414-GCM (W.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2011). We deny Brown’s motion for
appointment of counsel, his motions for joinder, and motion for
supplemental joinder, and 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.
AFFIRMED
∗
Because Brown paid his filing fee in full in this court,
he does not seek to proceed under the Prisoner Litigation Reform
Act. Thus, we have no occasion to analyze whether Brown’s prior
actions would qualify him as a three-striker in this Court under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3