UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1370 MELANIE SMITH; EMANUEL SMITH, et al Mortgage Rescission Petitioners and Crime Victims’ Rights Claimants, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a Bank of New York; METLIFE HOME LOANS; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; HUGH GREEN, The Atlantic Law Group, LLC; KRISTINA J. LONGO, & Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver; FAYE W. MITCHELL, and the Chesapeake City Circuit Court Office Staff, Defendants – Appellees, and TINA MCDANIEL AND NECTAR PROJECTS, INCORPORATED; FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN CORPORATION, (Now Defunct/Expired), Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cv-00495-RGD-LRL) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melanie Smith, Emanuel Smith, Appellants Pro Se. Katherine Grace Mims Crocker, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Andrew Francis Lopez, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Dean L. Robinson, ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC, Leesburg, Virginia; E. Jon Steren, OBER KALER GRIMES & SHRIVER, PC, Washington, D.C.; David Brandt Oakley, POOLE BROOKE PLUMLEE PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Adam Michael Carroll, WOLCOTT RIVERS & GATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Melanie and Emanuel Smith appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil case. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the Smiths’ informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, they have forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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 3