Case ID: f-appx_687/html/0297-01.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

Steve C. CHADWICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-6333
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 25, 2017
    Decided: April 28, 2017
    Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. '

PER CURIAM:

Steve C. Chadwick appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chadwick’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Chadwick has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 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