Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Huff v. United States Department of the Army, 10-1436 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1436 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1436 JAMES E. HUFF, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00805-BEL) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Hu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1436 JAMES E. HUFF, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00805-BEL) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James E. Huff appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to resume complaint,” which the district court construed as a motion to reopen, and for the appointment of counsel. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). While Huff’s informal brief asserts various errors in the district court’s order dismissing his civil action, which was issued in September 2007, it does not challenge the district court’s disposition of the motion that is the subject of this appeal. Thus, we hold Huff has forfeited appellate review of that 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer