Eric M. McMillian; Darryl Laface v. Sheriff Donnie Harrison; Canteen Food Services; Shaw Food Services Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6725
ERIC M. MCMILLIAN; DARRYL LAFACE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SHERIFF DONNIE HARRISON; CANTEEN FOOD SERVICES; SHAW FOOD
SERVICES COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03259-D)
Submitted: October 20, 2014 Decided: October 28, 2014
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric M. McMillian, Darryl LaFace, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eric M. McMillian and Darryl LaFace appeal the
district court’s order and judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) civil rights complaint, which they filed while
detained at the Wake County Detention Center. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm the judgment.
The district court first denied McMillian’s request to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, found that
McMillian did not allege that he was under imminent danger of
serious physical injury, and dismissed him from the action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have reviewed the
record, including the dismissal orders identified as qualifying
strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm McMillian’s dismissal from the suit for
the reasons stated by the district court. See McMillian v.
Harrison, No. 5:13-ct-03259-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2014).
The district court later dismissed without prejudice
the claims raised by LaFace. On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because neither the informal brief nor the supplemental
informal brief challenges this aspect of the district court’s
disposition, LaFace has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s order.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis, 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 --