Court Opinion

ID: 4164472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-28 19:04:07.086554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:53.188502
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6333

STEVE C. CHADWICK,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN,

                    Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cv-04063-RDB)

Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Steve C. Chadwick appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chadwick’s informal brief does not

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Chadwick 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

                                            2