Lenton Brown v. Barbara Gibson, No. 19-1852 (4th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1852 LENTON CREDELLE BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BARBARA GIBSON, State of North Carolina, Human Resources; ERICA A. HOOKS, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, individually; JOSH STEINS, State of North Carolina; DENNIS DANIELS, Maury Correctional Superintendent, individually; GARY PARKS, Personnel Administrator, Maury Correctional, individually; JOHN GRAY, Lieutenant, Maury Correctional, individually; JOHN HERRING, Assistant Superintendent, Maury Correctional, individually; CAPTAIN WATSON, Maury Correctional, individually; JAMIE COBB, Captain, Maury Correctional, individually; CHRISTIAN THOMAS RUSSELL, Sergeant, Maury Correctional, individually; SYNDEY SMITH, Assistant Unit Manager, Maury Correctional, individually; TIFFANY KERNER, NC DPS EEO Investigator, individually; GLORIA ELLERBE, NC DPS EEO Investigator, individually; JOHANNA FARR COOKE, Nurse, Vidant Medical, individually; THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MAURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; VIDANT MEDICAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00180-FL) Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenton Credelle Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lenton Credelle Brown appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. Brown v. Gibson, No. 4:17-cv-00180-FL (E.D.N.C. July 1, 2019; July 25, 2019). 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. DISMISSED 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.