Filed: Oct. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1845 GLORIA DEAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JERRY R. TILLETT, individually, and in his official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge District 1, North Carolina; JOSEPH H. FORBES, JR., Esquire, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00038-D) Submitted: October 13
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1845 GLORIA DEAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JERRY R. TILLETT, individually, and in his official capacity as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge District 1, North Carolina; JOSEPH H. FORBES, JR., Esquire, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00038-D) Submitted: October 13,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1845
GLORIA DEAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JERRY R. TILLETT, individually, and in his official capacity
as Senior Resident Superior Court Judge District 1, North
Carolina; JOSEPH H. FORBES, JR., Esquire,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever
III, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00038-D)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gloria Dean Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr.,
Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Ronald
Graham Baker, SHARP, MICHAEL, GRAHAM & BAKER, LLP, Kitty Hawk,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gloria Dean Williams appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Williams’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
district court’s disposition, Williams has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370
F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2