David Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc. ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1133
DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CONMED, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JASON BINGHAM, Cpl.; JOHN CARHART, Sgt.; SENIOR TROOPER
CLAYCOMB; FRANK FORNOSS, Str.; STRED WINKLER, Senior
Trooper; SGT. GALLIGAN; SCOTT PEDERSON; K. R. JENKINS,
Officer; JAMIE GROVER, Officer; CHRIS TAYLOR, Tfc.; EDWARD
EICHER, Sgt.; TPR BISHOP; THE CARROLL COUNTY JAIL; MR.
HARDINGER, Warden; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLICE; STATE POLICE
WESTMINSTER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00930-ELH)
Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Althauser,
Megan Green Anderson, Eric Matthew Rigatuso, ECCLESTON & WOLF,
PC, Hanover, Maryland for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
David Michael Montgomery appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Conmed, Inc., on
Montgomery’s 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 Montgomery’s informal
brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s
disposition, Montgomery has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s order. 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.”). Accordingly, we deny Montgomery’s motions for
appointment of counsel and 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