Roger Dale Persinger, Jr. v. Northern Regional Jail

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7284
ROGER DALE PERSINGER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTHERN REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DALE
GRIFFITH, Unit Manager (NCF), sued in individual capacity;
JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner Division of Corrections, sued
in individual capacity; SYNTHIA GARDNER, Central Office
Grievance Review, sued in individual capacity; DIANA MILLS,
Counselor NNCF, sued in individual capacity; NANCY NINE,
Counselor (NCF), sued in individual capacity; KAREN
PSZCZOLKOWSKI, Warden (NCF), sued in individual capacity;
BRANDY MILLER, Associate Warden of Programs, sued in
individual capacity; JANE/JOHN DOE, Unknown Defendants
Through Discovery,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00119-FPS-JSK)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Dale Persinger, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Eric
Barchiesi, LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD J. KELLY, Pittsburgh,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Roger Dale Persinger, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and denying relief on 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). Here, the district
court dismissed the complaint based on Persinger’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, but Persinger does not
meaningfully address exhaustion in his informal brief on appeal.
Because Persinger’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
for the district court’s disposition, Persinger 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 --