Greene v. Sadler

Fourth Circuit

Greene v. Sadler

673 F. App'x 324

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2017

DocketNo. 16-7087

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 673 F. App'x 324 (Greene v. Sadler) 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

Greene v. Sadler, 673 F. App'x 324 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Greene appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Greene’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Greene’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Greene 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, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Greene’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Greene appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Greene’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Greene’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Greene 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, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Greene’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 F. App'x 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-sadler-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack