Sean Terry v. Swift Transportation ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1346
SEAN V. TERRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00256-NCT-LPA)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean V. Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander L. Maultsby, Kip D. Nelson, FOX
ROTHSCHILD LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean V. Terry appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to
the defendant on his defamation claim and dismissing his remaining claims. On appeal,
we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Under a liberal construction of his informal brief, Terry challenges the district court’s
ruling that his defamation claim was time-barred. We have reviewed this claim and find
no reversible error, so we affirm the denial of relief on the defamation claim for the
reasons stated by the district court. Terry v. Swift Transp., No. 1:16-cv-00256-NCT-LPA
(M.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2019).
Turning to the remaining claims, we conclude that Terry’s informal brief does not
challenge the bases for the district court’s dispositive rulings. Therefore, Terry has
forfeited appellate review of those claims. 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.”). Finally, “[i]ssues raised
for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional
circumstances.” Williams v. Prof’l Transp. Inc., 294 F.3d 607, 614 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of these claims. We deny Terry’s
request for a district court transcript and 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