Court Opinion

ID: 9913855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:48.685445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:09.333384
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6852      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6852

        JAMES DAVID NANNEY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        DAVID BOYLE, Counsel of Record,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00171-MR-WCM)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James David Nanney, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6852         Doc: 9       Filed: 12/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James David Nanney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review

        to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Nanney’s informal

        brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited

        appellate review of the court’s order.      See 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment.        Nanney v. Boyle, No. 1:23-cv-00171-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.

        Aug. 14, 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

                                                      2