Case ID: f-appx_622/html/0292-01.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

Roger Dale PERSINGER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHERN REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; Dale Griffith, Unit Manager (NCF), sued in individual capacity; James Rubenstein, Commissioner Division of Corrections, sued in individual capacity; Synthia Gardner, Central Office Grievance Review, sued in individual capacity; Diana Mills, Counselor NNCF, sued in individual capacity; Nancy Nine, Counselor (NCF), sued in individual capacity; Karen Pszczolkowski, Warden (NCF), sued in individual capacity; Brandy Miller, Associate Warden of Programs, sued in individual capacity; Jane/John Doe, Unknown Defendants Through Discovery, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-7284.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 17, 2015.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2015.
    Roger Dale Persinger, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Barchiesi, Law Offices of Bernard J. Kelly, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Dale Persinger, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 84(b). Here, the district court dismissed the complaint based on Persinger’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but Per-singer does not meaningfully address exhaustion in his informal brief on appeal. Because Persinger’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Persinger 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.