Filed: Mar. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7403 RODNEY L. GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00158-MSD-DEM) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7403 RODNEY L. GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00158-MSD-DEM) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7403
RODNEY L. GOODMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00158-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Goodman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney L. Goodman appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing him
to either pay the filing fee or execute a consent form to
authorize installment payments. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Goodman’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,
Goodman 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