History
  • No items yet
midpage
Steve Chadwick v. Warden
687 F. App'x 297
| 4th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steve C. Chadwick appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chadwick’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Chadwick 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, 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

2

Case Details

Case Name: Steve Chadwick v. Warden
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: Apr 28, 2017
Citation: 687 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: 17-6333
Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.