Case Name: Kenneth Valentine AWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, VDOC Regional Administrator; Rosp Warden Mathena, Warden; Rosp Ass/Warden Walrath, A/Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-19
Citations: 593 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 14-7737
Parties: Kenneth Valentine AWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, VDOC Regional Administrator; Rosp Warden Mathena, Warden; Rosp Ass/Warden Walrath, A/Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
Kenneth Valentine AWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, VDOC Regional Administrator; Rosp Warden Mathena, Warden; Rosp Ass/Warden Walrath, A/Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7737.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 19, 2015.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of The Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth V. Awe appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Awe's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Awe's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Awe has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. 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.