Lee v. Center

Fourth Circuit

Lee v. Center

478 F. App'x 25

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1749

StatusPublished

This text of 478 F. App'x 25 (Lee v. Center) 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

Lee v. Center, 478 F. App'x 25 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Orlando A. Lee, Sr., appeals the district court’s order construing his motion to re[26]*26open his case as a FecLR.Civ.P. 60(b) motion and denying the motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lee’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Lee’s motion for a transcript at the government’s expense 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 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Orlando A. Lee, Sr., appeals the district court’s order construing his motion to re[26]*26open his case as a FecLR.Civ.P. 60(b) motion and denying the motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lee’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Lee’s motion for a transcript at the government’s expense 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 F. App'x 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-center-ca4-2012.