Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0138-01.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

Ken GRYDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HCL AMERICA; Adrienne Kenndy, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1387
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2017
    Decided: July 31, 2017
    Ken Gryder, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Lynn Vossler, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &' STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ken Gryder appeals the district court’s order dismissing Gryder’s civil claims against Defendants after reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gryder’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive rulings, Gryder has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, although we grant Gryder’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. See Gryder v. HCL America, No. 1:17-cv-00246-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2017). 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