Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0206-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frankie ROCCHETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.; The Gorilla Glue Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2014.
    Frankie Rocchetti, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Allen Poe, Jr., Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
      . The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2006).
    
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frankie Rocchetti appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, and dismissing his complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 84(b). Because Rocchetti’s informal brief is conelusory and does not challenge the basis for the district court’s denial of his strict products liability claim for lack of causation, Rocchetti has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the court’s order.

With regard to the failure to warn claim, the magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rocchetti that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Rocchetti has waived appellate review of the failure to warn claim by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We grant Rocchetti leave to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris, and 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. 
      
      . To the extent that Rocchetti challenges the district court’s rejection of his demand for prosecution of others, we conclude that the court properly denied relief. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).