Furtado v. Rupp

Fourth Circuit

Furtado v. Rupp

272 F. App'x 308

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 2008

DocketNo. 08-6096

StatusPublished

This text of 272 F. App'x 308 (Furtado v. Rupp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Furtado v. Rupp, 272 F. App'x 308 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. ,

Unpublished opinions are pot binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edson Furtado appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). In his informal appellate brief, Furtado failed to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his case. Therefore, Furtado has waived ap[309]*309pellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm. Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.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Unpublished opinions are pot binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edson Furtado appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). In his informal appellate brief, Furtado failed to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his case. Therefore, Furtado has waived ap[309]*309pellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm. Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F. App'x 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furtado-v-rupp-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack