Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mitchell v. Loven, 10-2240 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-2240 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2240 DANITA MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEAN P. LOVEN; LISA BELL, Judge; FELICIA MCADOO, Chief Deputy Sheriff; DANIEL BAILEY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00148-RJC-DSC) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2240 DANITA MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEAN P. LOVEN; LISA BELL, Judge; FELICIA MCADOO, Chief Deputy Sheriff; DANIEL BAILEY, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00148-RJC-DSC) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danita Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Gerald Patrick Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danita Mitchell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil rights complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mitchell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Mitchell 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer