Case ID: f-appx_412/html/0626-01.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

Allen Lee DAVIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Detective Lt. GRAY; Sergeant Peppers; Linda Sha Harris, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-7412.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.
    Decided: Jan. 28, 2011.
    Allen Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. James Dean Jolly, Jr., Logan, Jolly & Smith, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Allen Lee Davis appeals the district court’s amended order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Davis challenges only the propriety of the redaction of certain information from summary judgment material submitted by Defendants Gray and Peppers. Davis’s argument is irrelevant to whether the district court correctly applied Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), to his claims of illegal search and seizure. Moreover, Davis’s arguments on appeal do not relate to his claims against Defendant Harris. Thus, Davis has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order by failing to challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.