Filed: Apr. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2588 EDMOND K. MACHIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEO E. GREEN, JR., Judge; LORI HESTER; ERIC ROSENBERG; PHILLIP R. ZUBER; EMILY SPIERING; ROSENBERG & FAYNE LLP; SASSCER, CLAGETT & BUCHER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03360-GJH) Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016 Before AGEE, DIAZ,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2588 EDMOND K. MACHIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEO E. GREEN, JR., Judge; LORI HESTER; ERIC ROSENBERG; PHILLIP R. ZUBER; EMILY SPIERING; ROSENBERG & FAYNE LLP; SASSCER, CLAGETT & BUCHER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03360-GJH) Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016 Before AGEE, DIAZ, a..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2588 EDMOND K. MACHIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEO E. GREEN, JR., Judge; LORI HESTER; ERIC ROSENBERG; PHILLIP R. ZUBER; EMILY SPIERING; ROSENBERG & FAYNE LLP; SASSCER, CLAGETT & BUCHER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03360-GJH) Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edmond K. Machie, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edmond Machie appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Machie’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Machie 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
