Toyri T. Brandon v. National Credit Union Association

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1884
TOYRI T. BRANDON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD; DEBBIE MATZ, Chairwoman, NCUA Board,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01461-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: December 21, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2016
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toyri T. Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Marie Konkoly,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Lauren Anne Wetzler,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Toyri T. Brandon appeals the district court’s order
granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.∗ We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Brandon v.
Nat’l Credit Union Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-01461-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.
July 13, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
∗ We conclude that, by failing to identify any of the
deposits she contends should have been included in the
reconstruction, Brandon waived appellate review of her claim
concerning the Defendants’ reconstruction of her deposit
history. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appellants to present
“specific issues and supporting facts and arguments” in informal
brief); see, e.g., Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648,
653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting single conclusory remark
regarding error “is insufficient to raise on appeal any merits-
based challenge to the district court’s ruling”); Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
(“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 28] with respect to a particular claim
triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).

-- 2 of 2 --