Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district court's October 3, 2014, order dismissing Defendants Feldman, Thatcher, and Hudson, the court's July 7, 2015, order granting Defendant Nelson's motion for summary judgment, and the court's September 2, 2015, order denying his motion for reconsideration, granting his motion for voluntary dismissal, and dismissing his action raising claims under Bi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district court's October 3, 2014, order dismissing Defendants Feldman, Thatcher, and Hudson, the court's July 7, 2015, order granting Defendant Nelson's motion for summary judgment, and the court's September 2, 2015, order denying his motion for reconsideration, granting his motion for voluntary dismissal, and dismissing his action raising claims under Biv..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district court's October 3, 2014, order dismissing Defendants Feldman, Thatcher, and Hudson, the court's July 7, 2015, order granting Defendant Nelson's motion for summary judgment, and the court's September 2, 2015, order denying his motion for reconsideration, granting his motion for voluntary dismissal, and dismissing his action raising claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Roudabush's informal brief does not proffer specific argument challenging the bases for the district court's dispositions, Roudabush has forfeited appellate review of the court's orders. 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.
