Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06417/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6417

MARK WAYNE BALLARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARCELLUS BUCHANAN; DON GAST, AUSA Asheville, NC; MARTIN 

REIDINGER, US District Court Judge at Bryson City, NC; 

TIMOTHY S. WOO, US Probation Officer at Asheville, NC; 

DENNIS CHRISP; DANNY E. DAVIS; DENNIS HOWELL, US Magistrate 

Judge at Bryson City, NC; FNU LNU, F.B.I Agent is employed 

as Indian case agent Asheville, NC; DONALD WOLFE, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs Investigator at Asheville NC; FNU LNU, Female 

Cherokee Tribal Police Officer at Bryson City, NC; JASON 

E.B. SMITH; MARK BUCHANAN; JASON HOWELL, Tribal Police 

Officer for Cherokee Indian Police Dept. at Bryson City, NC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00173-FDW)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Wayne Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 16-6417 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6417 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Mark Wayne Ballard appeals the district court’s order 

denying the postjudgment motion for miscellaneous relief that 

Ballard filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, 

we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ballard’s informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Ballard 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

Appeal: 16-6417 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3