Toyri Brandon v. National Credit Union Assn.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999654799-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01461-TSE-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999743442]. Mailed to: T. Brandon. [15-1884]

Appeal: 15-1884

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1884

TOYRI T. BRANDON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD; DEBBIE MATZ, Chairwoman, NCUA Board,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01461-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:

December 21, 2015

Decided:

January 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Toyri T. Brandon, Appellant Pro Se.
Antonia Marie Konkoly,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Lauren Anne Wetzler,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1884

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Toyri

T.

Brandon

appeals

the

district

court’s

granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ∗

order
We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly,

we

dismiss

deny

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis

and

appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.

the

Brandon v.

Nat’l Credit Union Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-01461-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va.
July 13, 2015).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

∗

We conclude that, by failing to identify any of the
deposits she contends should have been included in the
reconstruction, Brandon waived appellate review of her claim
concerning
the
Defendants’
reconstruction
of
her
deposit
history. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appellants to present
“specific issues and supporting facts and arguments” in informal
brief); see, e.g., Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648,
653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting single conclusory remark
regarding error “is insufficient to raise on appeal any meritsbased challenge to the district court’s ruling”); Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
(“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 28] with respect to a particular claim
triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).

2