Filed: Jun. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1402 CRIST LADICOS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00120-RBS-TEM) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crist Ladicos, Appellant Pro Se. U
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1402 CRIST LADICOS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00120-RBS-TEM) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crist Ladicos, Appellant Pro Se. Un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1402 CRIST LADICOS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00120-RBS-TEM) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Crist Ladicos, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Crist Ladicos seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ladicos’ brief alleges no error committed by the district court in dismissing his complaint, Ladicos has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
