Holmes v. Causby

587 F. App'x 766
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 18, 2014
DocketNo. 14-2011
StatusPublished

This text of 587 F. App'x 766 (Holmes v. Causby) 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
Holmes v. Causby, 587 F. App'x 766 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene T. Holmes appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 84(b). Because Holmes does not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition but instead appears to raise new claims, he 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 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
587 F. App'x 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-causby-ca4-2014.