Benjamin Brown v. R. A. Kleinholz ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7438
    BENJAMIN S. BROWN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    R. A. KLEINHOLZ, Police Officer; OFFICER MCWHIRTER,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Office of The Attorney General;
    State/Person; RAY J. TARASOVIC, Chief Of Police,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01064-CMH-TCB)
    Submitted: March 27, 2018                                     Decided: April 2, 2018
    Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin S. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Earl Hill, Jr., CITY ATTORNEY’S
    OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin S. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
    raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Brown’s informal brief
    does not challenge the district court’s ruling that Defendants are entitled to qualified
    immunity, an independent and sufficient basis for the district court’s disposition, Brown
    has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 
    775 F.3d 170
    , 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth
    Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”); see also Cavallo v.
    Star Enter., 
    100 F.3d 1150
    , 1152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (issue first raised in reply brief “is
    not properly before a court of appeals”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment.    We deny Brown’s motions for transcript at government expense and
    appointment of counsel. 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-7438

Filed Date: 4/2/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021