Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6118 HAROLD LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON; MR. HAMMOND, T.P.S.; JOHN M. JABE; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00247-gec-mfu) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Af
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6118 HAROLD LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON; MR. HAMMOND, T.P.S.; JOHN M. JABE; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00247-gec-mfu) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Aff..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6118 HAROLD LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON; MR. HAMMOND, T.P.S.; JOHN M. JABE; STANLEY YOUNG, Warden, Pocahontas State Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00247-gec-mfu) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Lee, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold Lee appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lee’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Lee has forfeited appellate review of the court’s 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