Case Name: Tornello Fontaine PIERCE EL BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Josh STEIN; Pat McCrory; State of North Carolina; James Allen Joines; Sheriff William T. Schatzman; BJ Barnes, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; Nancy Vaughan, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-11
Citations: 708 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 17-2030
Parties: Tornello Fontaine PIERCE EL BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Josh STEIN; Pat McCrory; State of North Carolina; James Allen Joines; Sheriff William T. Schatzman; BJ Barnes, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; Nancy Vaughan, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Tornello Fontaine PIERCE EL BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Josh STEIN; Pat McCrory; State of North Carolina; James Allen Joines; Sheriff William T. Schatzman; BJ Barnes, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; Nancy Vaughan, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-2030
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 2, 2018
Decided: January 11, 2018
Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh North Carolina; James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lonnie Glenn Albright, III, FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; James Demarest Secor, III, Greensboro, North Carolina; Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce El Bey's informal brief does not raise any specific challenge to the basis for the district court's disposition of the merits of his claims, Pierce El Bey 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 conclude that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction as Pierce El Bey's false arrest claim should have been raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We further reject Pierce El Bey's conclusory assertion that the district judge was biased. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).