Farley Bernard v. Nurse Hobb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-ct-03164-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999023093]. Mailed to: Farley L. Bernard. [12-7284]

Appeal: 12-7284

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/16/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7284

FARLEY L. BERNARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NURSE HOBBS; VIRGINIA SUE DAWSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GERALD BRANKER; CHAPLAIN SPEARS; CHAPLAIN MONTGOMERY;
ROBERT C. LEWIS; KERRY MASSEY; SGT. BENNETT; HATTIE B.
PIMPONG; CARL E. BATTLE; MRS. SMITH; RENOICE STANCIL;
EDWARD B. THOMAS; DONNIE R. RAYNOR; A. JAMES; R. LEE; NURSE
WATSON; DR. WILLIAMS; MARY S. POLLARD,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03164-D)

Submitted:

December 27, 2012

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

January 16, 2013

Appeal: 12-7284

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/16/2013

Farley L. Bernard,
Assistant
Attorney
Appellees.

Appellant
General,

Pg: 2 of 4

Pro Se.
Raleigh,

Lisa
North

Yvette Harper,
Carolina,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-7284

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/16/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Farley L. Bernard appeals the district court’s January
12, 2012 order denying his motions for reconsideration, to amend
his complaint, for a preliminary injunction, and for appointment
of counsel and directing Defendants Hobbs and Dawson to file a
response to his motion to compel discovery, its May 9, 2012
order denying his motions for reconsideration and leave to amend
and granting in part his motion to compel discovery, and its
July

18,

judgment

2012
motion

order
and

granting

denying

Hobbs’

Bernard

and

leave

Dawson’s
to

depose

summary
in

his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because

Bernard’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
denial

of

his

motions

for

reconsideration,

to

amend,

for

a

preliminary injunction, and for leave to depose or its rulings
directing Hobbs and Dawson to respond to his motion to compel
and granting the motion to compel in part, Bernard has forfeited
appellate review of those rulings.
With respect to the district court’s rulings denying
Bernard’s motions for appointment of counsel and granting Hobbs’
and

Dawson’s

summary

judgment

motion,

record and find no reversible error.

we

reviewed

the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.
3

have

Bernard v. Hobbs,

Appeal: 12-7284

Doc: 12

Filed: 01/16/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

(E.D.N.C.

12

No. 5:10-ct-03164-D
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Jan.

&

because

presented

in

July
the
the

18,

2012).

We

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4