Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0142-01.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

Tornello Fontaine PIERCE EL BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Josh STEIN; Pat McCrory; State of North Carolina; James Allen Joines; Sheriff William T. Schatzman; BJ Barnes, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; Nancy Vaughan, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-2030
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 2, 2018
    Decided: January 11, 2018
    
      Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh North Carolina; James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lonnie Glenn Albright, III, FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; James Demarest Secor, III, Greensboro, North Carolina; Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce El Bey’s informal brief does not raise any specific challenge to the basis for the district court’s disposition of the merits of his claims, Pierce El Bey 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 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 
      
       We conclude that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction as Pierce El Bey's false arrest claim should have been raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We further reject Pierce El Bey’s conclusory assertion that the district judge was biased. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).