Launeil Sanders v. Henry McMaster

Filing 920090316

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1671

LAUNEIL SANDERS; JANNETH SANDERS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. HENRY MCMASTER, State of South Carolina Authorized Agent, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, SC Attorney General; TREY GOWDY, State of South Carolina, SC 7th Solicitor; MARK KITCHENS; DAVID INGALLS; DAVID ALFORD; PREPAID LEGAL, INC., Its Authorized Representative Counsel Berry, Quackenbush, and Stuart, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-03510-GRA-WMC)

Submitted:

March 12, 2009

Decided:

March 16, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Launeil Sanders, Janneth Sanders, Appellants Pro Se. Mary Frances G. Jowers, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Edwin Calhoun Haskell, III, SMITH & HASKELL, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Christopher R. Antley,

DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, Appellees; David Griffith Ingalls, Appellee Pro Se.

for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Launeil district court's Sanders order and Janneth the Sanders appeal of the the

accepting

recommendation

magistrate judge and granting the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants, David Alford, Henry McMaster, and the State of South Carolina. In their informal appellate brief, the Sanders failed

to challenge the district court's reasons supporting the denial of relief. Accordingly, the Sanders have forfeited appellate See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will

review of those issues.

limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court's order. 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. AFFIRMED

3