Case Name: Adrian Nathaniel BACON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall C. MATHENA; Major Gallihar; Fletcher, Q.M.H.P.; Jones, Q.M.H.P.; Huff, Q.M.H.P.; Wright, Q.M.H.P.; Adams, Q.M.H.P.; Lt. Stanley; Capt. Blevins; Sgt. Boyd; Sgt. Miller; c/o Howard; c/o Sturgill; c/o Gilbert, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-28
Citations: 610 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 15-6680
Parties: Adrian Nathaniel BACON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall C. MATHENA; Major Gallihar; Fletcher, Q.M.H.P.; Jones, Q.M.H.P.; Huff, Q.M.H.P.; Wright, Q.M.H.P.; Adams, Q.M.H.P.; Lt. Stanley; Capt. Blevins; Sgt. Boyd; Sgt. Miller; c/o Howard; c/o Sturgill; c/o Gilbert, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Adrian Nathaniel BACON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall C. MATHENA; Major Gallihar; Fletcher, Q.M.H.P.; Jones, Q.M.H.P.; Huff, Q.M.H.P.; Wright, Q.M.H.P.; Adams, Q.M.H.P.; Lt. Stanley; Capt. Blevins; Sgt. Boyd; Sgt. Miller; c/o Howard; c/o Sturgill; c/o Gilbert, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6680.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2015.
Decided: July 28, 2015.
Adrian Nathaniel Bacon, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Nathaniel Bacon appeals the district court's order dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bacon's informal brief does not challenge the district court's conclusion that his suit must be dismissed as malicious, Bacon has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. Accordingly, we deny Bacon's motion to appoint counsel and dismiss 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.
DISMISSED.