Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01892/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01892-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ABC Corporation
Appellee
Isaac Hannah Coleman
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Steven N. Fulton
Appellant
New England Motor Freight
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1892

STEVEN N. FULTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ISAAC HANNAH COLEMAN; NEW ENGLAND MOTOR FREIGHT; ABC 

CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-3,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (4:14-cv-00007-D)

Submitted: December 11, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven N. Fulton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Douglas Coates, Adam 

Lee White, PINTO, COATES, KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1892 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven N. Fulton appeals the district court’s May 28, 2015, 

order denying his fourth postjudgment motion filed in his civil 

case.* On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Fulton’s

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, Fulton 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

 * “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case 

is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 214 (2007). Fulton’s notice of appeal does not identify 

the order from which he is appealing; however, the May 28 order 

is the only order to which Fulton’s notice of appeal is timely. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), (4)(A). We have jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal despite Fulton’s failure to follow the 

technical requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175 (4th Cir. 2014); Hartsell v. Duplex 

Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 1997).

Appeal: 15-1892 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 2