Richard W. Mann v. European American Investment ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1503
    RICHARD W. MANN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    EUROPEAN AMERICAN INVESTMENT BANK AG,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00516-JAB-JLW)
    Submitted:   October 31, 2014             Decided:   November 6, 2014
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Raymond A. Knight, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Timothy G. Barber, Antonio E. Lewis, KING & SPALDING, LLP,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard       W.    Mann     appeals        the     district       court’s    order
    accepting        the   recommendation            of      the     magistrate        judge      and
    dismissing       the   case      for    lack     of      personal        jurisdiction.         On
    appeal,     we    confine       our     review      to     the    issues    raised       in   the
    Appellant’s brief.              See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); Edwards v.
    City   of   Goldsboro,          
    178 F.3d 231
    ,      241     n.6    (4th    Cir.     1999)
    (stating     failure        to         comply       with       this      rule     constitutes
    abandonment       of   appeal).           None      of     the     theories      asserted      in
    Appellant’s        brief        were    raised        in     his      objections      to      the
    magistrate       judge’s      recommendation.               Therefore,       Appellant        has
    waived appellate review of these arguments.                               United States v.
    Midgette, 
    478 F.3d 616
    , 620-22 (4th Cir. 2007).                             Accordingly, 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1503

Filed Date: 11/6/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021