Filed: Jun. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1250 JUDY KAY MISKELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALLEN ROHRER, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00742-CCB) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judy Kay Miskell, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1250 JUDY KAY MISKELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALLEN ROHRER, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00742-CCB) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judy Kay Miskell, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Ha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1250 JUDY KAY MISKELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ALLEN ROHRER, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00742-CCB) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judy Kay Miskell, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Harold Fogelson, Conrad W. Varner, VARNER & GOUNDRY, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Judy Kay Miskell appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to strike documents she filed in her closed case. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Miskell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Miskell 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
