Case Name: Eric M. McMILLIAN; Darryl Laface, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sheriff Donnie HARRISON; Canteen Food Services; Shaw Food Services Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-28
Citations: 585 F. App'x 120
Docket Number: No. 14-6725
Parties: Eric M. McMILLIAN; Darryl Laface, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sheriff Donnie HARRISON; Canteen Food Services; Shaw Food Services Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
Eric M. McMILLIAN; Darryl Laface, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sheriff Donnie HARRISON; Canteen Food Services; Shaw Food Services Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6725.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 28, 2014.
Eric M. McMillian, Darryl LaFace, Appellants Pro Se.
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric M. McMillian and Darryl LaFace appeal the district court's order and judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights complaint, which they filed while detained at the Wake County Detention Center. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.
The district court first denied McMilli-an's request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, found that McMillian did not allege that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury, and dismissed him from the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have reviewed the record, including the dismissal orders identified as qualifying strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm McMillian's dismissal from the suit for the reasons stated by the district court. See McMillian v. Harrison, No. 5:13-ct-03259-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2014).
The district court later dismissed -without prejudice the claims raised by LaFace. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because neither the informal brief nor the supplemental informal brief challenges this aspect of the district court's disposition, LaFace has forfeited appellate review of the court's order.
Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, 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.