Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7413 DARYL L. HADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON; FELIX TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03171-H) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7413 DARYL L. HADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE T. SOLOMON; FELIX TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03171-H) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7413
DARYL L. HADDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE T. SOLOMON; FELIX TAYLOR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03171-H)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daryl L. Hadden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl L. Hadden appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to
prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Hadden’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Hadden has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Hadden’s
pending motion to appoint counsel and 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