King v. SC Dept of Corrections

Fourth Circuit

King v. SC Dept of Corrections

600 F. App'x 131

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2015

DocketNo. 15-6058

StatusPublished

This text of 600 F. App'x 131 (King v. SC Dept of Corrections) 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

King v. SC Dept of Corrections, 600 F. App'x 131 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. King appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of mandamus. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 84(b). Because King does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in his informal brief, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. King appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of mandamus. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 84(b). Because King does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in his informal brief, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 F. App'x 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-sc-dept-of-corrections-ca4-2015.