Filed: May 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6093 JIMMY RULE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. JOHNSON, Corporal, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; R. LUFT, Corporal, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; J. KENNEDY, Deputy, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00665-JAG) Submitted
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6093 JIMMY RULE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. JOHNSON, Corporal, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; R. LUFT, Corporal, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; J. KENNEDY, Deputy, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00665-JAG) Submitted:..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6093 JIMMY RULE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. JOHNSON, Corporal, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; R. LUFT, Corporal, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center; J. KENNEDY, Deputy, C-Team, Virginia Beach Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cv-00665-JAG) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Rule King, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Rule King appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because King’s informal brief raises no issues challenging the district court’s disposition, King 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