Taylor v. Gill

Fourth Circuit

Taylor v. Gill

589 F. App'x 193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2015

DocketNo. 14-2220

StatusPublished

This text of 589 F. App'x 193 (Taylor v. Gill) 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

Taylor v. Gill, 589 F. App'x 193 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against a state court judge for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor does not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, 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.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against a state court judge for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor does not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 F. App'x 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-gill-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack