Woods v. South Carolina

Fourth Circuit

Woods v. South Carolina

332 F. App'x 868

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2009

DocketNo. 09-6969

StatusPublished

This text of 332 F. App'x 868 (Woods v. South Carolina) 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

Woods v. South Carolina, 332 F. App'x 868 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donniel Woods appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and denying reconsideration of that order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. Rule 34(b). Woods’ brief fails to challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusion that his complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In addition, Woods alleges no error committed by the district court in denying reconsideration of that order. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court, and deny Woods’ motions for discovery. 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 in the deci-sional 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Donniel Woods appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and denying reconsideration of that order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. Rule 34(b). Woods’ brief fails to challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusion that his complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In addition, Woods alleges no error committed by the district court in denying reconsideration of that order. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court, and deny Woods’ motions for discovery. 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 in the deci-sional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F. App'x 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-south-carolina-ca4-2009.