Case Name: Alan Dale CHRONISTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. METTS, Sheriff; Prison Health Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-31
Citations: 205 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 06-6553
Parties: Alan Dale CHRONISTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. METTS, Sheriff; Prison Health Services, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Alan Dale CHRONISTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. METTS, Sheriff; Prison Health Services, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6553.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 31, 2006.
Alan Dale Chronister, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Ashley S. Heslop, Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alan Dale Chronister appeals the magistrate judge's order denying Chronister's motion to appoint counsel, the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, and the district court's order denying Chronister's motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel and for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm those orders for the reasons stated by the district court. Chronister v. Metis, No. 2:04-cv-22848-HMH (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2005; Mar. 28, 2006).
Turning to the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying § 1983 relief, we note that Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district court's rejection of his claims in his informal appellate brief. Thus, he has waived appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). We deny Chronister's motion to appoint counsel and 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.