The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
06-7320•Johnny M. Brown v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Washington, D.C., Individually
06-7320Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 9, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7320
JOHNNY M. BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Washington,
D.C., Individually and in their official
capacities; JEAN B. HUDSON, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,
Individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00582-CMH)
Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 9, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
*The district court incorrectly identified Brown as a Virginia
state prisoner. Brown is a federal prisoner who must challenge his
conviction and sentence in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (2000). The district court is directed to issue an amended
order reflecting these corrections.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Johnny M. Brown appeals the district court’s order
dismissing this action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims
Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v.
United States Attorney’s Office, No. 1:06-cv-00582-CMH (E.D. Va.,
filed July 10, 2006; entered July 11, 2006). We deny the motion
for appointment of counsel 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. *
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.