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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: R Pierce. [16-1413]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
OFF CHARLES BRYANT;
Defendants - Appellees,
DONNELL THOMPSON; EARLENE EVANS WOODS; TRACY EDGE,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
January 13, 2017
January 30, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
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.
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Pierce
Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir.
Accordingly, although we grant Pierce’s application to
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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
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.
re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).
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?