Reaves v. Mullins Police Department
Opinion
In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal the district court’s order declining to accept the magistrate judge’s recommendations that attorney’s fees be awarded to Defendants. In their informal brief, Appellants fail to address the district court’s ruling on attorney’s fees. Therefore, Appellants have forfeited appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in the [222]*222informal brief); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999) (finding failure to raise issue in opening brief constituted abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
To the extent that Appellants also seek review of the district court's orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their civil complaints as well as denying their subsequent motions for reconsideration, we conclude that any appeal from these orders is untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
438 F. App'x 220 (Reaves v. Mullins Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.