Court Opinion

ID: 2968582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 07:35:32.202298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:46.467262
License: Public Domain

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
 

  Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 

  PER CURIAM:
 

  Stephen Ingram appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ request for sanctions and enjoining him from directly contacting Defendants and their employees, granting in part and denying in part his motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in his civil rights action.
 

  On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
  
   See
  
 
   *274
   
  4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ingram’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part his motion for an extension of time and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants, Ingram has waived appellate review of those orders. With respect to the district court’s order granting Defendants’ request for sanctions, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
  
   Ingram v. Wake Cnty. Gov’t,
  
  No. 5:08-cv-00078-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2009; Nov. 3, 2009; Apr. 8 & 9, 2010).
 

  We deny Ingram’s motions to mediate, to participate in oral argument, and 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.