Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7711 CHARLES A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSH CHRISTENSON, Harnett County Sheriff's Office; WILLIAM COATS, Angier Police Department; ADAM DUNN, Johnston County Sheriff's Office; JEFFREY CANADY, Johnston County Sheriff's Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03089-F) Submitte
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7711 CHARLES A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSH CHRISTENSON, Harnett County Sheriff's Office; WILLIAM COATS, Angier Police Department; ADAM DUNN, Johnston County Sheriff's Office; JEFFREY CANADY, Johnston County Sheriff's Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03089-F) Submitted..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7711
CHARLES A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOSH CHRISTENSON, Harnett County Sheriff's Office; WILLIAM
COATS, Angier Police Department; ADAM DUNN, Johnston County
Sheriff's Office; JEFFREY CANADY, Johnston County Sheriff's
Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03089-F)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Williams appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Williams does not
challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district
court’s disposition, he 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