Case Name: Mervin HINSON-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBERMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; B. J. Tipton, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 676 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 16-2148
Parties: Mervin HINSON-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBERMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; B. J. Tipton, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 676
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Mervin HINSON-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBERMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; B. J. Tipton, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2148
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 16, 2017
Decided: February 21, 2017
Mervin Hinson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Bradley Philip Kline, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedént in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mervin Hinson-Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hinson-Bey's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Hinson-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