Filed: Apr. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6096 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NELSON WOODWARD RUPP, JR., Judge; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03068-RWT) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6096 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NELSON WOODWARD RUPP, JR., Judge; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03068-RWT) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6096 EDSON FURTADO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NELSON WOODWARD RUPP, JR., Judge; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv- 03068-RWT) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edson Furtado appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). In his informal appellate brief, Furtado failed to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his case. Therefore, Furtado has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm. Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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 -
