Filed: Apr. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7511 CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:17-cv-01906-RMG) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: April 9, 2018 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7511 CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:17-cv-01906-RMG) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: April 9, 2018 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7511
CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:17-cv-01906-RMG)
Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: April 9, 2018
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to
reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Odom’s informal
brief does not challenge the basis for the court’s disposition, Odom 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 deny Odom’s motion for initial en banc hearing, deny a
certificate of appealability, and 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