Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kent Bell v. J. Messina, 18-6809 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-6809 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6809 KENT BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. MESSINA, (Woman) Staff MCTC; STACEY HOFFMAN, (Staff) MCTC; JASON GANOE, (Staff) MCTC; RICHARD DOVEY, (Warden) MCTC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01354-GLR) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 4, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judg
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6809


KENT BELL,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

J. MESSINA, (Woman) Staff MCTC; STACEY HOFFMAN, (Staff) MCTC;
JASON GANOE, (Staff) MCTC; RICHARD DOVEY, (Warden) MCTC,

                    Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01354-GLR)


Submitted: November 29, 2018                                 Decided: December 4, 2018


Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kent Bell, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Kent Bell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012) complaint.     On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellant’s brief.   See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).      Because Bell’s informal brief does not

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Bell has forfeited appellate review

of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 
775 F.3d 170
, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Bell’s motion for appointment

of counsel and 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer