Retha Pierce v. Charles Bryant

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1413
RETHA PIERCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFF CHARLES BRYANT; CHIEF RANDY RIZZO; CHARLENE TAYLOR;
JOSEPHINE ISOM,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DONNELL THOMPSON; EARLENE EVANS WOODS; TRACY EDGE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-02927-BHH)
Submitted: January 13, 2017 Decided: January 30, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Retha Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A.
Davis, Shawn Davis Eubanks, BOYKIN DAVIS & SMILEY, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Retha Pierce appeals the district court’s order dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Defendants
Bryant, Isom, Rizzo, and Taylor. ∗ On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Pierce
has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See
Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir.
2004). Accordingly, although we grant Pierce’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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
∗
The order Pierce appeals was not a final order when she
noted her appeal because it did not dispose of all the claims
against all defendants named in the complaint. See Robinson v.
Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per
curiam). Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Pierce’s
appeal because, subsequent to the filing of the notice of
appeal, the district court issued a final judgment that
dismissed the remaining defendants named in the complaint. In
re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).
3