Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0752-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lynda J. DELELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maude RUMPLE; Robert B. Tucker, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1084
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2017
    Decided: May 25, 2017
    Lynda J. DeLellis, Appellant Pro Se. Kirby Todd Phillips, HARTSELL & WILLIAMS, P.A., Concord, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lynda J. DeLellis appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because DeLellis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of her complaint and motion, DeLellis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 
      
      
        D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).