Stephen Ingram v. Wake County Government, Wake County Human Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1638
STEPHEN INGRAM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES; JACK H.
ROGERS, III, Wake County Human Services Division Director,
in his official and individual capacity; LILLIAN OVERTON,
Wake County Human Services Program Manager, in her official
and individual capacity; LEWIS D. JACKSON, JR., Wake County
Human Services Supervisor I, in his official and individual
capacity,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-cv-00078-FL)
Submitted: October 5, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Roger A. Askew, WAKE COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Ingram appeals the district court’s orders
granting Defendants’ request for sanctions and enjoining him
from directly contacting Defendants and their employees,
granting in part and denying in part his motion for an extension
of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in his civil
rights action.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Ingram’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the
district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part his
motion for an extension of time and adopting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to
Defendants, Ingram has waived appellate review of those orders.
With respect to the district court’s order granting Defendants’
request for sanctions, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
orders. Ingram v. Wake Cnty. Gov’t, No. 5:08-cv-00078-FL
(E.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2009; Nov. 3, 2009; Apr. 8 & 9, 2010).
We deny Ingram’s motions to mediate, to participate in
oral argument, and to appoint counsel, and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --