Filed: Jun. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1320 CHANG HUA ZENG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COOSAW PARTNERS LLC; TERRY KINDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cv-02023-RMG-MGB) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chang Hua Zeng, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1320 CHANG HUA ZENG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COOSAW PARTNERS LLC; TERRY KINDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cv-02023-RMG-MGB) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chang Hua Zeng, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1320 CHANG HUA ZENG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COOSAW PARTNERS LLC; TERRY KINDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cv-02023-RMG-MGB) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chang Hua Zeng, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Lewis Smith, SMITH & KOONTZ, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chang Hua Zeng appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint after concluding that res judicata precluded Chang’s claims. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chang’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Chang 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
