Filed: Sep. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1947 ROMAN TIFFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WORKER’S COMPENSATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; ABACUS CORPORATION; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-02076-WDQ) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1947 ROMAN TIFFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WORKER’S COMPENSATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; ABACUS CORPORATION; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-02076-WDQ) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1947 ROMAN TIFFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WORKER’S COMPENSATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; ABACUS CORPORATION; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-02076-WDQ) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roman Tiffer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roman Tiffer appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action seeking reversal of a state court judgment. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Tiffer’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Tiffer 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
