Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kirby Barnes v. Smithfield Foods, 14-1670 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1670 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1670 KIRBY BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00080-RBS-LRL) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirby Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Ku
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1670 KIRBY BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-00080-RBS-LRL) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirby Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt George Larkin, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kirby Barnes appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failing to serve the Defendant, Smithfield Foods, within 120 days of filing the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Barnes’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Barnes has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
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