Steven N. Fulton v. Isaac Coleman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00007-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999729658]. Mailed to: Steven Fulton. [15-1892]

Appeal: 15-1892

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1892

STEVEN N. FULTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ISAAC HANNAH COLEMAN; NEW
CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1-3,

ENGLAND

MOTOR

FREIGHT;

ABC

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:14-cv-00007-D)

Submitted:

December 11, 2015

Decided:

January 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven N. Fulton, Appellant Pro Se.
Paul Douglas Coates, Adam
Lee White, PINTO, COATES, KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1892

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Steven N. Fulton appeals the district court’s May 28, 2015,
order denying his fourth postjudgment motion filed in his civil
case. *

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in

the appellant’s brief.

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

Because Fulton’s

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Fulton has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order.
judgment.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

before

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case
is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007).
Fulton’s notice of appeal does not identify
the order from which he is appealing; however, the May 28 order
is the only order to which Fulton’s notice of appeal is timely.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), (4)(A).
We have jurisdiction to
consider this appeal despite Fulton’s failure to follow the
technical requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). See Jackson v.
Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175 (4th Cir. 2014); Hartsell v. Duplex
Prods., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 1997).

2