Filed: Sep. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1671 JERRY LEE ROSS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. J. D. BYRIDER SYSTEMS, INC.; CNAC; SMART FINANCE, INC.; SMART AUTO, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00596-MOC-DSC) Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1671 JERRY LEE ROSS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. J. D. BYRIDER SYSTEMS, INC.; CNAC; SMART FINANCE, INC.; SMART AUTO, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00596-MOC-DSC) Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1671
JERRY LEE ROSS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
J. D. BYRIDER SYSTEMS, INC.; CNAC; SMART FINANCE, INC.;
SMART AUTO, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00596-MOC-DSC)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Lee Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Caren D. Enloe, SMITH DEBNAM
NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Lee Ross appeals the district court’s order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’
motions to dismiss Ross’ civil claims against Defendants. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ross’
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Ross has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423,
430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 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