# Brown v. Smith

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 14, 1994 · 30 F.3d 128

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/674742

## Case

- **Full name:** William Christopher Brown v. William L. Smith Walter Johnson James Johnson Terrence Hyde David Doziger Alvin G. Johnson Maryland Division of Correction
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 14, 1994
- **Citations:** 30 F.3d 128; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 26647; 1994 WL 363422
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/674742

## Opinion text

30 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William Christopher BROWN, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
William L. SMITH; Walter Johnson; James Johnson; Terrence
Hyde; David Doziger; Alvin G. Johnson; Maryland
Division of Correction, Defendants Appellees.
No. 93-7200.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 1994.
Decided: July 14, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-547-H)
William Christopher Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
D.Md.
Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Smith, No. CA-93-547-H (D. Md. Mar. 9, 1993; Oct. 26, 1993). 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.
AFFIRMED

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/674742. Public record. Not legal advice.