Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc.

678 F. App'x 95

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 24, 2017

DocketNo. 16-1133

StatusPublished

This text of 678 F. App'x 95 (Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc.) 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

Montgomery v. Conmed, Inc., 678 F. App'x 95 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Michael Montgomery appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Conmed, Inc., on Montgomery’s 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. 34(b). Because Montgomery’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Montgomery has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Montgomery’s motions for appointment of counsel 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Michael Montgomery appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Conmed, Inc., on Montgomery’s 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. 34(b). Because Montgomery’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Montgomery has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Montgomery’s motions for appointment of counsel 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)

678 F. App'x 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-conmed-inc-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack