Court Opinion

ID: 9409954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:01:02.162196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.678570
License: Public Domain

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                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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