Charles Wimer v. Greene County General Circuit Court

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2356

CHARLES WIMER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREENE COUNTY GENERAL CIRCUIT COURT; GREENE COUNTY
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT; GREENE COUNTY COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; GREENE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
GREENE COUNTY MAGISTRATE’S OFFICE; GREENE COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT CLERK’S OFFICE; GREENE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT
CLERK’S OFFICE; DALE DURRER; EDWIN CONSOLVO; MORGAN
ZANDER; STEVE SMITH; JANE DOE; BARBARA BARRY; BRENDA
GARTON; MAJOR DAVIS; BARRY LEAK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00021-GEC)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2

Charles Wimer, Appellant Pro Se. Blaire Hawkins O’Brien, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Douglas Paul Holdsworth,
JACKSON LEWIS PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Wimer appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Wimer’s civil action in which he raised failure-to-
accommodate claims pursuant to the “public services” subchapter of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (2018), and the Rehabilitation Act, see 29
U.S.C. § 794 (2018). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wimer’s informal brief does not
challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Wimer has forfeited appellate review
of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The
informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited
to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We deny Wimer’s motion to add an additional party to his case. 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