Case Name: William Wayne COONTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION; Randloph County Prosecutors' Office; Phillip Isner; Philip Riggleman, in His Individual Capacity; Theresa Cogar, in Her Individual Capacity; Richard Wallace Shryock, Jr., In His Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Randolph County Circuit Court Judge; Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-29
Citations: 671 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: No. 16-1537
Parties: William Wayne COONTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION; Randloph County Prosecutors’ Office; Phillip Isner; Philip Riggleman, in His Individual Capacity; Theresa Cogar, in Her Individual Capacity; Richard Wallace Shryock, Jr., In His Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Randolph County Circuit Court Judge; Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendants.
Judges: Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 78–78

Head Matter:
William Wayne COONTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION; Randloph County Prosecutors’ Office; Phillip Isner; Philip Riggleman, in His Individual Capacity; Theresa Cogar, in Her Individual Capacity; Richard Wallace Shryock, Jr., In His Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Randolph County Circuit Court Judge; Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendants.
No. 16-1537
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: November 29, 2016
William Wayne Coonts, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clee Chenoweth, Peter G. Zur-buch, Busch, Zurbuch & Thompson, PLLC, Elkins, West Virginia; David K. Hendrickson, Hendrickson & Long, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Wayne Coonts appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Coonts' civil action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Coonts' informal brief does not challenge the district court's dispositive analysis, Coonts has waived 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