Kenneth Awe v. Red Onion State Prison ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6483
KENNETH V. AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RED ONION STATE PRISON; WARDEN R. MATHENA; ASSISTANT WARDEN
WALRATH; UNIT MANAGER KILBOURNE; LIEUTENANT FANNIN;
LIEUTENANT PAYNE; SERGEANT HILL; SERGEANT STEWART; K-9
OSCAR; L. OAKS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00487-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Awe appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Awe does not challenge the
district court’s conclusion that his complaint failed to state a
cognizable claim, he has forfeited appellate review of this
issue. Instead, Awe challenges the district court’s refusal to
authorize discovery, to order the Virginia Department of
Corrections to provide him with photocopying loans, and to
review a videotape of the incident giving rise to his excessive
force claim. Awe’s case was resolved solely by reference to the
face of the complaint, and he fails to demonstrate how discovery
or photocopies were necessary or why the court was required to
review evidence to issue a ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
We find no reversible error by the district court on these
grounds. 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
2