Filed: Nov. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2111 ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES A. CALES, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00486-AWA-TEM) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Emanuel Taylor, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2111 ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES A. CALES, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00486-AWA-TEM) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Emanuel Taylor, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2111 ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES A. CALES, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00486-AWA-TEM) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice 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 challenge in his informal brief 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
