Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7223 LEON GHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. DAVIS, Records; J. LAFLAND, Inmate Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01019-CMH-MSN) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7223 LEON GHOLSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. DAVIS, Records; J. LAFLAND, Inmate Records, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01019-CMH-MSN) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7223
LEON GHOLSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. DAVIS, Records; J. LAFLAND, Inmate Records,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:16-cv-01019-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leon Gholson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leon Gholson appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
(2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gholson’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Gholson 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 dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2