Case Name: Kenneth V. AWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED ONION STATE PRISON; Warden R. Mathena; Assistant Warden Walrath; Unit Manager Kilbourne; Lieutenant Fannin; Lieutenant Payne; Sergeant Hill; Sergeant Stewart; K-9 Oscar; L. Oaks, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-25
Citations: 582 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 14-6483
Parties: Kenneth V. AWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED ONION STATE PRISON; Warden R. Mathena; Assistant Warden Walrath; Unit Manager Kilbourne; Lieutenant Fannin; Lieutenant Payne; Sergeant Hill; Sergeant Stewart; K-9 Oscar; L. Oaks, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
Kenneth V. AWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED ONION STATE PRISON; Warden R. Mathena; Assistant Warden Walrath; Unit Manager Kilbourne; Lieutenant Fannin; Lieutenant Payne; Sergeant Hill; Sergeant Stewart; K-9 Oscar; L. Oaks, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6483.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2014.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Awe appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Awe does not challenge the district court's conclusion that his complaint failed to state a cognizable claim, he has forfeited appellate review of this issue. Instead, Awe challenges the district court's refusal to authorize discovery, to order the Virginia Department of Corrections to provide him with photocopying loans, and to review a videotape of the incident giving rise to his excessive force claim. Awe's case was resolved solely by reference to the face of the complaint, and he fails to demonstrate how discovery or photocopies were necessary or why the court was required to review evidence to issue a ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We find no reversible error by the district court on these grounds. 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.