# Jerome Brown, Sr. v. John Farnum

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 18, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9409954

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 18, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/9409954

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1579 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1579

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN TUCKER FARNUM, Et esq, Attorney Case 1:18-cv-370 Granted
Conversion; JOSH BOGGAN, Department of Health Professions, Case Intake
Manager, Enforcement Division; JOHN GAUL, General counsel for all legal affairs;
RINA BANSAL, MD MBA, President INOVA Hospitals Alexandria & Falls
Church,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Michael S. Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00191-MSN-TCB)

Submitted: July 13, 2023 Decided: July 18, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1579 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil

complaint and denying his motion to reopen or reconsider. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. * See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Brown v. Farnum, No. 1:22-cv-00191-

MSN-TCB (E.D. Va. May 6, 2022; filed Apr. 1, 2022, entered Apr. 4, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

*
We note that the magistrate judge granted Brown’s second motion to proceed in
the district court without prepaying fees or costs on March 3, 2022.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9409954. Public record. Not legal advice.