Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01613/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01613-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America
Appellee
Charles Holliday
Appellee
Walter Massey
Appellee
William Massey

Brian Moynihan
Appellee
President of the United States

John S. Stritzinger
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee
Vice President of United States

Vernon MC Wright
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1613

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA; VERNON MC WRIGHT; CHARLES HOLLIDAY; BRIAN 

MOYNIHAN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WALTER MASSEY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WILLIAM MASSEY; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES; OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:15-cv-01469-TLW)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se. 

Appeal: 16-1613 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1613 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

John Stritzinger appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation dismissing his 

complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Stritzinger’s informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s disposition, Stritzinger 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 and deny 

Stritzinger’s motion to appoint counsel. 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: 16-1613 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3