Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

William Barrett, Sr. v. United States, 13-1589 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1589 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1589 WILLIAM LESLIE BARRETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. USA-Social Security; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; USA/Eric Holder, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00469-BO) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1589 WILLIAM LESLIE BARRETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. USA-Social Security; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; USA/Eric Holder, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00469-BO) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Barrett, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Leslie Barrett, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Barrett’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Barrett has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barrett v. United States, No. 5:10-cv-00469-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 20, 2013; Apr. 24, 2013). 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
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