Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7737 KENNETH VALENTINE AWE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GEORGE HINKLE, VDOC Regional Administrator; ROSP WARDEN MATHENA, Warden; ROSP ASS/WARDEN WALRATH, A/Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00178-JLK-RSB) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7737 KENNETH VALENTINE AWE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GEORGE HINKLE, VDOC Regional Administrator; ROSP WARDEN MATHENA, Warden; ROSP ASS/WARDEN WALRATH, A/Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00178-JLK-RSB) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLO..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7737
KENNETH VALENTINE AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GEORGE HINKLE, VDOC Regional Administrator; ROSP WARDEN
MATHENA, Warden; ROSP ASS/WARDEN WALRATH, A/Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00178-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth V. Awe appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Awe’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Awe’s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Awe 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2