Case Name: Alice M. DEANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARSHALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee; Alice M. Deane, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marshalls, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee; Alice M. Deane, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marshalls, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-20
Citations: 218 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: Nos. 06-1793, 06-2039, 06-2174
Parties: Alice M. DEANE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MARSHALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee. Alice M. Deane, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Marshalls, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. Alice M. Deane, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Marshalls, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Alice M. DEANE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MARSHALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee. Alice M. Deane, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Marshalls, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. Alice M. Deane, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Marshalls, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee.
Nos. 06-1793, 06-2039, 06-2174.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 20, 2007.
Alice M. Deane, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Alice M. Deane appeals the district court's order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil action and the order denying her motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). With regard to Deane's appeal of the order denying her Rule 60(b) motion, we find that Deane has waived appellate review of that order by failing to challenge the district court's reasoning in her informal appellate brief. Turning to the district court's order dismissing Deane's civil action, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Deane leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the order dismissing her civil action but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
We have jurisdiction to review this order because the district court properly granted an extension of time to appeal.