Retha Pierce v. Charles Bryant


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1413 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1413 RETHA PIERCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFF CHARLES BRYANT; JOSEPHINE ISOM, CHIEF RANDY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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appeal: 16-1413 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1413 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Retha Pierce appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. §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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?