Filed: Mar. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8130 RAYMOND DARNELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00152-NKM-RSB) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8130 RAYMOND DARNELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00152-NKM-RSB) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8130 RAYMOND DARNELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00152-NKM-RSB) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Darnell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Darnell Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Johnson’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in his informal brief, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion for leave to amend his complaint and 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