Esther Brown v. Alberto Gonzales, No. 08-1519 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1519 ESTHER LEE BROWN, The Estate of Esther Lee Brown; LENTON C. BROWN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General; KEVIN MORRIS; BOBBY MORRIS; LILLE DUBBY MORRIS; TONY BANKS; ROY COOPER, The State of North Carolina Attorney General; BERTIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; GREG ATKINS; WALLACE PERRY, Commissioner; JOHN DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II, Defendants - Appellees. No. 08-1950 ESTHER LEE BROWN, The Estate of Esther Lee Brown; LENTON C. BROWN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General; KEVIN MORRIS; BOBBY MORRIS; LILLE DUBBY MORRIS; TONY BANKS; ROY COOPER, The State of North Carolina Attorney General; BERTIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; GREG ATKINS; WALLACE PERRY, Commissioner; JOHN DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-00007-F) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenton Creolle Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, Appellees. Jane Ammons Gilchrist, North Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Lenton C. Brown appeals from various orders and the final judgment denying relief in a civil action he filed on behalf of himself and the estate of his mother. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Gonzales, No. 2:07-cv-00007-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2008; Apr. 10, 2008; July 21, 2008). Brown s motions to amend the complaint, to vacate miscellaneous district court orders, and to reopen the case in the district court are denied. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
