Filed: Mar. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2284 ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARENDA L. WRIGHT ALLEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00576-MSD-TEM) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Emanuel Taylor, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2284 ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARENDA L. WRIGHT ALLEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00576-MSD-TEM) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Emanuel Taylor, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2284
ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARENDA L. WRIGHT ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00576-MSD-TEM)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Emanuel Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint against a district court judge for failure to state a
claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor
does not in his informal brief challenge the basis for the
district court’s disposition, he 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