Case ID: f-appx_631/html/0176-02.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

Toyri T. BRANDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION; National Credit Union Administration Board; Debbie Matz, Chairwoman, NCUA Board, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 15-1884.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 21, 2015.
    Decided: Jan. 28, 2016.
    Toyri T. Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Marie Konkoly, Office of the United States Attorney, Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Toyri T. Brandon appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Brandon v. Nat’l Credit Union Ass’n, No. l:14-cv-01461-TSE-JFA (E.D.Va. July 13, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       We conclude that, by failing to identify any of the deposits she contends should have been included in the reconstruction, Brandon waived appellate review of her claim concerning the Defendants’ reconstruction of her deposit history. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appellants to present "specific issues and supporting facts and arguments” in informal brief); see, e.g., Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n. 7 (4th Cir.2006) (noting single conclusory remark regarding error “is insufficient to raise on appeal any merits-based challenge to the district court’s ruling”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999) ("Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).