Gamble v. Craddock

Fourth Circuit

Gamble v. Craddock

618 F. App'x 186

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2015

DocketNo. 15-6875

StatusPublished

This text of 618 F. App'x 186 (Gamble v. Craddock) 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

Gamble v. Craddock, 618 F. App'x 186 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Gamble, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on several postjudgment motions in his action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gamble’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Gamble has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Gamble’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Gamble, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on several postjudgment motions in his action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gamble’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Gamble has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Gamble’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 F. App'x 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamble-v-craddock-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack