Coxson v. Shank

Fourth Circuit

Coxson v. Shank

468 F. App'x 318

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 28, 2012·No. No. 11-7489·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Adrain Coxson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues [319] raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Coxson’s informal brief raises no issues challenging the district court’s disposition, Coxson 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 the 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Adrain Coxson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues [319] raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Coxson’s informal brief raises no issues challenging the district court’s disposition, Coxson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Coxson v. Shank, 468 F. App'x 318 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

468 F. App'x 318 (Coxson v. Shank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related