Simon Allen, Jr. v. Bryan Loui

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-00363-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765038]. Mailed to: Simon Allen, Jr. [15-7687]

Appeal: 15-7687

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7687

SIMON ALLEN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN LOUIS,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GREENWOOD COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; GREENWOOD SOLICITOR,
Office; B. WARE; N. FUTCH; R. COKER; TONY DAVIS; LONNIE
SMITH; RONNIE POWELL; C. RAYAN JOHNSON; WALTER RUTLEDGE;
BROOKS; WILLIAM KAY; DAVID M. STUMBO,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00363-RMG)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Carly Marie Harter, Russell
W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South

Appeal: 15-7687

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7687

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Simon

Allen,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Allen’s
motion

for

a

declaratory

judgment

and

injunctive

relief

and

grant Louis summary judgment on Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
claim against Louis. *

Allen’s failure to challenge on appeal the

district court’s dispositive holdings amounts to a waiver of
appellate review of those holdings.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The

Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal
brief.”); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th
Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not
raised

in

the

abandoned.”).

argument
Because

section
we

find

of
no

the

opening

reversible

brief

error

by

district court, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
v.

Louis,

dispense

No.
with

contentions

are

8:15-cv-00363-RMG
oral

argument

adequately

(D.S.C.
because

presented

in

Oct.
the
the

16,
facts

are
the

Allen

2015).

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

The
district
court
previously
dismissed,
without
prejudice, Allen’s claims against the remaining Defendants.
Allen does not challenge this prior order on appeal.

3