Case Name: Keith S. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Daniel Brown, an infant, who brings this action by his next friend, Plaintiff, v. Natalie RAMSEY; Ruby Hart, Defendants-Appellees, and Karen Davis; Joseph Ramsey; Juanita Joyce; Mary Jane Leckrone; Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.; Stephanie Moats; Arliss Ketchum; Gail Heath; James M. Haggard, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-21
Citations: 10 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 01-1041
Parties: Keith S. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Daniel Brown, an infant, who brings this action by his next friend, Plaintiff, v. Natalie RAMSEY; Ruby Hart, Defendants-Appellees, and Karen Davis; Joseph Ramsey; Juanita Joyce; Mary Jane Leckrone; Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.; Stephanie Moats; Arliss Ketchum; Gail Heath; James M. Haggard, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Keith S. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Daniel Brown, an infant, who brings this action by his next friend, Plaintiff, v. Natalie RAMSEY; Ruby Hart, Defendants-Appellees, and Karen Davis; Joseph Ramsey; Juanita Joyce; Mary Jane Leckrone; Billy K. Cannaday, Jr.; Stephanie Moats; Arliss Ketchum; Gail Heath; James M. Haggard, Defendants.
No. 01-1041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2001.
Decided May 21, 2001.
Keith S. Brown, pro se. Timothy Meade Richardson, Huff, Poole & Mahoney, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Keith S. Brown appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 & 1986 (West 1994) complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Ramsey, No. CA-98-75 (E.D.Va. Nov. 24, 2000). We deny Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal. 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.