The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-2074•D. Sidney Potter v. Suntrust Bank; Randstad Us, L.p.
15-2074Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 19, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2074
D. SIDNEY POTTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUNTRUST BANK; RANDSTAD US, L.P.,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WILLIAM ROGERS; LINDA GALIPEAU; CHRISTINE MILES; REGINALD
FORD; MARGARET SLAUGHTER; CHARMAINE SURGEON; JULIE HARDY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00436-JRS)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Sidney Potter, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy S. Lester, James Clay
Rollins, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
D. Sidney Potter appeals the district court’s order
dismissing this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), 47(b)
for failure to prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Potter’s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Potter 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.