Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0498-01.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

Tyrone ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.W. ELKINS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-2289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 20, 2003.
    Decided April 10, 2003.
    Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patricia A. Duffy, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Andrews appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Elkins’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. Andrews raises only one issue in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (pro se appellants may obtain appellate review of only those issues explicitly raised in their informal briefs). Relying on the initial pretrial conference order, Andrews maintains that the district court should not have granted Elkins’ motion for summary judgment because the motion was filed out of time and the district court led him to believe that he did not need to respond to Elkins’ motion. We find this claim without merit given that an order subsequent to the initial pretrial conference extended the discovery period and Andrews was given specific notice by the district court, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975), that failure to respond to Elkins’ motion for summary judgment could lead to dismissal of his case. Therefore, Andrews’ argument is simply belied by the record.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See Andrews v. Elkins, 227 F.Supp.2d 488 (M.D.N.C. 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       To the extent that Andrews also appeals the magistrate judge’s April 17, 2002, order pertaining to discovery, we find no abuse of discretion and also affirm that order. Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28, 32 (4th Cir.1988) (a district court is permitted wide latitude in controlling the course and scope of discovery, subject to abuse of discretion on appeal).