Retha Pierce v. Charles Bryant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999794654-2] Originating case number: 4:14-cv-02927-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000012654]. Mailed to: R Pierce. [16-1413]

Appeal: 16-1413

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/30/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1413

RETHA PIERCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFF CHARLES BRYANT;
JOSEPHINE ISOM,

CHIEF

RANDY

RIZZO;

CHARLENE

TAYLOR;

Defendants - Appellees,
and
DONNELL THOMPSON; EARLENE EVANS WOODS; TRACY EDGE,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-02927-BHH)

Submitted:

January 13, 2017

Decided:

January 30, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Retha Pierce, Appellant Pro Se.
Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A.
Davis, Shawn Davis Eubanks, BOYKIN DAVIS & SMILEY, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 16-1413

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/30/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1413

Doc: 19

Filed: 01/30/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Retha Pierce appeals the district court’s order dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Defendants
Bryant, Isom, Rizzo, and Taylor. ∗

On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because

Pierce’s

informal

brief

See 4th
does

not

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Pierce
has

forfeited

appellate

review

of

the

court’s

order.

See

Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir.
2004).

Accordingly, although we grant Pierce’s application to

proceed

in

judgment.
legal
before

forma

pauperis,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

∗

The order Pierce appeals was not a final order when she
noted her appeal because it did not dispose of all the claims
against all defendants named in the complaint. See Robinson v.
Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per
curiam).
Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Pierce’s
appeal because, subsequent to the filing of the notice of
appeal, the district court issued a final judgment that
dismissed the remaining defendants named in the complaint.
In
re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).

3