Jovon Davis v. Keeling , 707 F. App'x 778 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7009
    JOVON DAVIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    KEELING, Warden; DR. JAMES BROCKINGTON; SYED RAZA, Dr., I.C.C.C.
    Tel-med Mitt Clinic; JAMES “KEELING,” Warden; PAMELA WOODS, Unit
    Manager; G. A. HADEN,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARK, Virginia
    D.O.C. Director; LT. TAYLOR; OFFICER POWERS, Correctional Officer,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00327-CMH-TCB)
    Submitted: December 21, 2017                            Decided: December 28, 2017
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jovon Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Jovon Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary
    judgment and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012), the
    Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. On
    appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir.
    R. 34(b). Because Davis’ informal brief does not sufficiently challenge the bases for the
    district court’s disposition, Davis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See
    Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 
    370 F.3d 423
    , 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we
    affirm the district court’s judgment. * 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 have considered and reject Davis’ contention that the district court abused its
    discretion in denying the appointment of counsel. See Miller v. Simmons, 
    814 F.2d 962
    ,
    966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-7009

Citation Numbers: 707 F. App'x 778

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 12/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024