Case ID: f-appx_628/html/0182-01.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

Steven N. FULTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Isaac Hannah COLEMAN; New England Motor Freight; ABC Corporation; John Does 1-3, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    No. 15-1892.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 11, 2015.
    Decided: Jan. 5, 2016.
    
      Steven N. Fulton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Paul Douglas Coates, Adam Lee White, Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven N. Fulton appeals the district court’s May 28, 2015, order denying his fourth postjudgment motion filed in his civil case. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Fulton’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Fulton has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 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. 
      
       "[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Fulton’s notice of appeal does not identify the order from which he is appealing; however, the May 28 order is the only order to which Fulton’s notice of appeal is timely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), (4)(A). We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal despite Fulton’s failure to follow the technical requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 3(c). See Jackson.v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175 (4th Cir.2014); Hartsell v. Duplex Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 1997).