eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2017-01

Retha Pierce v. Charles Bryant , 674 F. App'x 323 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1413
RETHA PIERCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFF CHARLES BRYANT;    CHIEF    RANDY   RIZZO;   CHARLENE   TAYLOR;
JOSEPHINE ISOM,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DONNELL THOMPSON; EARLENE EVANS WOODS; TRACY EDGE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.      Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-02927-BHH)
Submitted:   January 13, 2017               Decided:   January 30, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Retha Pierce, Appellant Pro Se.    Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A.
Davis, Shawn Davis Eubanks, BOYKIN DAVIS & SMILEY, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Retha Pierce appeals the district court’s order dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Defendants
Bryant, Isom, Rizzo, and Taylor. ∗                    On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.                           See 4th
Cir.       R.    34(b).       Because     Pierce’s     informal       brief    does   not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Pierce
has    forfeited         appellate    review     of   the   court’s      order.       See
Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
    370 F.3d 423
    , 430 n.4 (4th Cir.
2004).          Accordingly, although we grant Pierce’s application to
proceed         in    forma   pauperis,    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
∗
The order Pierce appeals was not a final order when she
noted her appeal because it did not dispose of all the claims
against all defendants named in the complaint. See Robinson v.
Parke-Davis & Co.,
    685 F.2d 912
    , 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per
curiam).    Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Pierce’s
appeal because, subsequent to the filing of the notice of
appeal, the district court issued a final judgment that
dismissed the remaining defendants named in the complaint.  In
re Bryson,
    406 F.3d 284
    , 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).
3