Case Name: H. Leighton LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; City of Baltimore; Mayor and City Council, for the City of Baltimore; Law Department, for the City of Baltimore; Chris Lundy, Defense Counsel; Frank Conaway, Clerk of the Court's Baltimore City Circuit; Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk's Office, Defendants-Ap-pellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-01
Citations: 577 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 14-1413
Parties: H. Leighton LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; City of Baltimore; Mayor and City Council, for the City of Baltimore; Law Department, for the City of Baltimore; Chris Lundy, Defense Counsel; Frank Conaway, Clerk of the Court’s Baltimore City Circuit; Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
H. Leighton LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; City of Baltimore; Mayor and City Council, for the City of Baltimore; Law Department, for the City of Baltimore; Chris Lundy, Defense Counsel; Frank Conaway, Clerk of the Court’s Baltimore City Circuit; Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, Defendants-Ap-pellees.
No. 14-1413.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2014.
Decided: July 1, 2014.
H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action without prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the appellant's informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Laskey does not fairly argue that Younger abstention is inappropriate in his case. Rather, he baldly alleges that the state court clerk falsified court records in his state court action, that the action should have been dismissed earlier for lack of prosecution, and that Appellees are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of access to the judicial system. These allegations are raised for the first time on appeal, see Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (declining to address on appeal claims not presented to district court), and in any event, find no support in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Laskey v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00853-WDQ (D.Md. Apr. 21, 2014). 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.