Court Opinion

ID: 9908568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-09 21:00:30.605899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:16.336063
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6306      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6306

        KENNETH KENNEDY SHANNON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

        C. MICHAEL LAIRD; BRANDAN MCSHEEHY, Special Agent Drug
        Enforcement Agency (“DEA”); DAVID LESLIE, T.F.O.; CHRIS OKSALA, Group
        Supervisor, D.E.A.; SEAN MCMICKING, Special Agent D.E.A.; JAMES DUFFY,
        Special Agent D.E.A.; JAKE GRILL, City of Charleston Police Dept. T.F.O.;
        REARNY VANN, Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office T.F.O.; JONATHAN HOFF,
        City of Charleston Police Dept. T.F.O.; ROD RAPE, Special Agent D.E.A.;
        CHAUNCY SOLOMON, T.F.O.,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:22-cv-04318-DCN)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: December 8, 2023

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Kennedy Shannon, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6306      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Kennedy Shannon appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Shannon’s civil rights

        complaint. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Shannon’s informal

        brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is

        limited to issues preserved in that brief.”), we find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. Shannon v. Laird, No. 2:22-cv-04318-DCN (D.S.C.

        Feb. 28, 2023; Mar. 9, 2023). 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

               *
                To the extent Shannon challenges on appeal the characterization of his claims, he
        waived appellate review by failing to object to this aspect of the magistrate judge’s
        recommendation after being warned of the consequences of failing to file specific
        objections. See Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766
        F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).

                                                     2