Filed: Jul. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6715 MICHAEL MCNEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. DOORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00923-JKB) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McNeal, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6715 MICHAEL MCNEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. DOORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00923-JKB) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McNeal, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6715 MICHAEL MCNEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. DOORY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00923-JKB) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McNeal, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael McNeal appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because McNeal’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, McNeal has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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
