Case Name: Louise BIGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; Government National Mortgage Association, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2011-002; Ginnie Mae; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a/k/a MERS; Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 690 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 17-1275
Parties: Louise BIGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; Government National Mortgage Association, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2011-002; Ginnie Mae; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a/k/a MERS; Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 816–816

Head Matter:
Louise BIGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; Government National Mortgage Association, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2011-002; Ginnie Mae; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a/k/a MERS; Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1275
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2017
Decided: May 30, 2017
Louise Biggers, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, KAUFMAN & CA-ÑOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges,

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louise Biggers appeals the district court's order dismissing her complaint seeking to forestall the foreclosure of her home for failure to state a claim and as barred by res judicata. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Biggers' informal brief does not challenge the district court's dispositive conclusion that her claims are barred by res judieata, Biggers has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED