Filed: Oct. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1747 JEFFREY K. GRAY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EMC MORTGAGE, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02768-AW) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey K. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Nat
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1747 JEFFREY K. GRAY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EMC MORTGAGE, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02768-AW) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey K. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Nath..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1747 JEFFREY K. GRAY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. EMC MORTGAGE, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cv-02768-AW) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey K. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Nathan Heyer, THOMPSON & HINE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey K. Gray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gray’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Gray has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Gray’s motion to appoint counsel an 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
