Case Name: Daniel Thomas LANAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATUXENT INSTITUTION; Tanika Amason; Correctional Officer Anderson; Unknown Officers; Warden; Assistant Warden; State of Maryland; Mental Health Management Company; Doctor Moghe, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-27
Citations: 692 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 17-6591
Parties: Daniel Thomas LANAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATUXENT INSTITUTION; Tanika Amason; Correctional Officer Anderson; Unknown Officers; Warden; Assistant Warden; State of Maryland; Mental Health Management Company; Doctor Moghe, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
Daniel Thomas LANAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATUXENT INSTITUTION; Tanika Amason; Correctional Officer Anderson; Unknown Officers; Warden; Assistant Warden; State of Maryland; Mental Health Management Company; Doctor Moghe, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6591
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Daniei Thomas Lanahan, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Thomas Lanahan appeals the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel, declining to appoint a guardian ad litem, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20Í2) civil action as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lanahan's informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court's rulings, Lanahan 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