Case Name: Titus THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer G.L. WILSON; Officer D. Krampt; Officer R. Allison; Officer T. Mengus; Officer Henderson; Terry Miller, Inmate ID 274-682; Justin Chaney, Inmate ID 348-112; Gary Anderson, Inmate ID 344-943; Imani Green, Inmate ID 337-646, Defendants-Appellees, v. Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-06
Citations: 437 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 11-6121
Parties: Titus THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer G.L. WILSON; Officer D. Krampt; Officer R. Allison; Officer T. Mengus; Officer Henderson; Terry Miller, Inmate ID 274-682; Justin Chaney, Inmate ID 348-112; Gary Anderson, Inmate ID 344-943; Imani Green, Inmate ID 337-646, Defendants-Appellees, v. Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Titus THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer G.L. WILSON; Officer D. Krampt; Officer R. Allison; Officer T. Mengus; Officer Henderson; Terry Miller, Inmate ID 274-682; Justin Chaney, Inmate ID 348-112; Gary Anderson, Inmate ID 344-943; Imani Green, Inmate ID 337-646, Defendants-Appellees, v. Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest.
No. 11-6121.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
Decided: July 6, 2011.
Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Rex Schultz Gordon, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Titus Thomas appeals the district court's order denying his motion for the appoint ment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) civil rights action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Thomas' informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Thomas has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.