Michael Sorbello v. Haywood County Municipality ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7186
    MICHAEL ANTHONY SORBELLO,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HAYWOOD COUNTY MUNICIPALITY; CHARLIE COOK, Public Defender,
    Individually and in his Official Capacity; M.A. MCABEE,
    Deputy Sheriff with the Haywood County Sheriff’s Office,
    Individually and in his Official Capacity; ROB SKIVER,
    Police Officer with the Waynesville Police Department,
    Individually and in his Official Capacity; N.C. STATE CRIME
    LABORATORY, Department of Justice Western; G. BAXTER,
    Examiner with the N.C. State Crime Laboratory, Individually
    and in his Official Capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Frank D. Whitney,
    Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00274-FDW)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2016              Decided:    November 28, 2016
    Before DIAZ and    THACKER,    Circuit   Judges,       and   DAVIS,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Anthony Sorbello, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Anthony Sorbello appeals the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    28 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 Sorbello’s informal
    brief    does    not   challenge    the   basis    for     the   district    court’s
    disposition, Sorbello has waived 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 deny Sorbello’s motion for
    appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s order.
    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: 16-7186

Filed Date: 11/28/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021