Johnny Vanover v. Raia Hirsch ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6765
    JOHNNY M. VANOVER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    RAIA HIRSCH, in their individual and official capacity;
    JEANETTE W. MCBRIDE, in her individual and official
    capacity; THEODORE N. LUPTON, in his individual and official
    capacity; WALTER SHAWN MCDANIEL, in his individual and
    official capacity; DAVID UNGER, in his individual and
    official capacity; REYNOLDO CROFY, in his individual and
    official capacity; RANDY BENSON, in his individual and
    official capacity; LARRY CRUTCHLOW, in his individual and
    official capacity; LUIS DIAZ, in his individual and official
    capacity; JIMMY WILDER, in his individual and official
    capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (4:14-cv-00277-DCN)
    Submitted:   September 25, 2014          Decided:   September 30, 2014
    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnny M. Vanover, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny M. Vanover appeals the district court’s order
    accepting     the     recommendation          of    the     magistrate        judge     and
    dismissing       Vanover’s        
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
         (2012)     civil     rights
    complaint    under    28    U.S.C.       § 1915A(b)       (2012).       On    appeal,    we
    confine    our    review     to    the    issues     raised     in    the     Appellant’s
    brief.      See     4th    Cir.    R.    34(b).      Because        Vanover     does    not
    challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in his
    informal briefs, Vanover has forfeited appellate review of the
    court’s    order.         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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6765

Filed Date: 9/30/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021