History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lynda DeLellis v. Maude Rumple
689 F. App'x 752
| 4th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynda J. DeLellis, Appellant Pro Se. Kirby Todd Phillips, HARTSELL & WILLIAMS, P.A., Concord, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lynda J. DeLellis appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker - Feldman [*] doctrine, s ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because DeLellis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of her complaint and motion, DeLellis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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

[*] D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 2

Case Details

Case Name: Lynda DeLellis v. Maude Rumple
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: May 25, 2017
Citation: 689 F. App'x 752
Docket Number: 17-1084
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.