Cooper v. Clarke

678 F. App'x 132
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 28, 2017·No. No. 16-7454·Published

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Cooper appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Cooper’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Cooper 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 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are [133] adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cooper v. Clarke, 678 F. App'x 132 (4th Cir. 2017).

678 F. App'x 132 (Cooper v. Clarke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. Giant Food Inc.
370 F.3d 423 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)