Retha Pierce v. Charles Bryant

674 F. App'x 323

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 30, 2017
• Docket: 16-1413
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Retha Pierce appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Defendants Bryant, Isom, Rizzo,, and Taylor. * On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Pierce has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, although we grant Pierce’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

* The order Pierce appeals was not a final order when she noted her appeal because it did not dispose of all the claims against all defendants named in the complaint. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Pierce’s appeal because, subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the district court issued a final judgment that dismissed the remaining defendants named in the complaint. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).