Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
14-6765•Johnny M. Vanover v. Raia Hirsch, in their individual
14-6765Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit30.09.2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6765
JOHNNY M. VANOVER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAIA HIRSCH, in their individual and official capacity;
JEANETTE W. MCBRIDE, in her individual and official
capacity; THEODORE N. LUPTON, in his individual and official
capacity; WALTER SHAWN MCDANIEL, in his individual and
official capacity; DAVID UNGER, in his individual and
official capacity; REYNOLDO CROFY, in his individual and
official capacity; RANDY BENSON, in his individual and
official capacity; LARRY CRUTCHLOW, in his individual and
official capacity; LUIS DIAZ, in his individual and official
capacity; JIMMY WILDER, in his individual and official
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-00277-DCN)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Johnny M. Vanover, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Johnny M. Vanover appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing Vanover’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Vanover does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in his
informal briefs, Vanover has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s order. 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.