Case Name: Reniece L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana J. BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Steven E. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 696 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 17-1773
Parties: Reniece L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana J. BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Steven E. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
Reniece L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dana J. BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; Steven E. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1773
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 17, 2017
Decided: August 21, 2017
Reniece L.W. Kabando, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reniece L.W. Kabando appeals from the district court's January 24, 2017, order denying her motion for an expedited hearing and self-styled "Motion for Exparte" and May 31, 2017, order dismissing her amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012) and denying leave to amend that complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Kabando's informal brief does not present specific arguments challenging the bases for the district court's dispositions, Kabando has forfeited appellate review of the court's orders. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. 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
Kabando states in her informal brief that she needs assigned counsel. To the extent that Kabando is requesting the appointment or assignment of counsel on appeal, that request is denied.