Case Name: Jovon DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEELING, Warden; Dr. James Brockington; Syed Raza, Dr., I.C.C.C. Telmed Mitt Clinic; James "Keeling," Warden; Pamela WoodS, Unit Manager; G. A. Haden, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections; Harold Clark, Virginia D.O.C. Director; Lt. Taylor; Officer Powers, Correctional Officer, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-28
Citations: 707 F. App'x 778
Docket Number: No. 17-7009
Parties: Jovon DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEELING, Warden; Dr. James Brockington; Syed Raza, Dr., I.C.C.C. Telmed Mitt Clinic; James “Keeling,” Warden; Pamela WoodS, Unit Manager; G. A. Haden, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections; Harold Clark, Virginia D.O.C. Director; Lt. Taylor; Officer Powers, Correctional Officer, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 778–779

Head Matter:
Jovon DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEELING, Warden; Dr. James Brockington; Syed Raza, Dr., I.C.C.C. Telmed Mitt Clinic; James “Keeling,” Warden; Pamela WoodS, Unit Manager; G. A. Haden, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections; Harold Clark, Virginia D.O.C. Director; Lt. Taylor; Officer Powers, Correctional Officer, Defendants.
No. 17-7009
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 28, 2017
Jovon Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jovon Davis appeals the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R, 34(b). Because Davis' informal brief does not sufficiently challenge the bases for the district court's disposition, Davis 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
We have considered and reject Davis' contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review).