Case Name: Samuel WOLLSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY WASHINGTON HOSPITAL/HOSPICE; Social Security Administration; Charles I. Maurer, Dr.; Frederick Tucker, Dr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-19
Citations: 310 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 08-2014
Parties: Samuel WOLLSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY WASHINGTON HOSPITAL/HOSPICE; Social Security Administration; Charles I. Maurer, Dr.; Frederick Tucker, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
Samuel WOLLSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARY WASHINGTON HOSPITAL/HOSPICE; Social Security Administration; Charles I. Maurer, Dr.; Frederick Tucker, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-2014.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 19, 2008.
Samuel Wollstein, Appellant Pro Se. Wesley Glenn Russell, Jr., McSweeney, Crump, Childress & Temple, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Robin Elaine Perrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, Richmond, Virginia; Todd David Anderson, Leclair Ryan, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Wollstein appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint. In his informal appellate brief, Wollstein failed to challenge the district court's reasons supporting the denial of relief. Accordingly, Wollstein has waived appellate review of those issues. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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.