Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07186/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07186-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7186

MICHAEL ANTHONY SORBELLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAYWOOD COUNTY MUNICIPALITY; CHARLIE COOK, Public Defender, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity; M.A. MCABEE, 

Deputy Sheriff with the Haywood County Sheriff’s Office, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity; ROB SKIVER, 

Police Officer with the Waynesville Police Department, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity; N.C. STATE CRIME 

LABORATORY, Department of Justice Western; G. BAXTER, 

Examiner with the N.C. State Crime Laboratory, Individually 

and in his Official Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00274-FDW)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Sorbello, Appellant Pro Se. 

Appeal: 16-7186 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7186 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Sorbello appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 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 Sorbello’s informal 

brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Sorbello has waived 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 deny Sorbello’s motion for 

appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s order. 

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: 16-7186 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3